Dragon Age 3 II: [This Thread Title Was Deemed Inappropriate By The Chantry] [Archive]

Psyren

2014-05-20, 08:47 AM

Aside from Fenris' hatred of mages, I honestly liked the guy. Very pragmatic and snarky. And I can at least understand his distrust of mages - Tevinter is a seriously messed up place - I just wish he had left his prejudices at home. Though he tends to give Anders and Merrill a harder time than Hawke and Bethany.

You learned about neutrality from Zapp Brannigan's Big Book of War, didn't you?

Not a clue what you're getting at with this comment. :smallconfused:

Anyway, the real reason I dislike Anders is because I don't believe in violent revolution even in real life, let alone in a world where the oppressed minority, again, turns into rampaging monsters if they lose their cool.

Okay, I'll oblige - let's put aside real life examples and stick just with the game. I assume then that you were okay with the Tevinter Imperium mass-enslaving the elves (among others) and sacrificing them by the pound for their Fade experiments? Because Andraste didn't exactly write them a scathing editorial in the local paper, nor did she perform a hunger strike on their doorstep.

I'm as big a fan of peaceful assembly as any, but I also recognize that it does not always work and drastic measures are sometimes warranted. And while I would avoid all collateral damage if I could, that is not always feasible.

So, bit of a change of topic here, but since I finished up with Dark Souls and we've been pretty active in this thread again, it occurred to me that I had never actually seen the Dwarf origins from the first game. Mostly because I've never really wanted to play a Dwarf, but still, I decided I wanted to see the origins. So I played through them today, and yeah, I can see why people like them. Easily among the better origins overall.

Still don't make me want to play a Dwarf, though. I am mulling playing through the game again with something else, however. Possibly with a restart of a character I went only partway through with some time ago - a strictly support-type Mage. One who literally took no spells that dealt damage, and relied on the rest of the party to do all the real hurting (outside of the Fade segment, of course). If memory serves it was actually working out just fine. But I stopped halfway through to play something else, and I don't want to jump back into a partially-completed game so long after the fact, so I'd be starting over entirely. Could be fun, though.

The alternative would probably be a sword-and-shield warrior, the one character type I've not played as. But the reason I haven't played it is because I don't think I'd much enjoy being the party tank, so yeah, I'm thinking Mage.

Thanks for reminding me - I've been meaning to watch the dwarf origin(s) on YT.

I hate being a warrior/tank too, but at least DA:O has Arcane Warrior so I'll make an exception for that. That'll allow me to leave Alistair/Oghren at home for a change.

Archpaladin Zousha

2014-05-20, 09:23 AM

I hasten to add to Psyren's point about revolutions and stuff that this is set in a more medieval time period, and thus the idea of passive resistance and non-violent protest really has yet to catch on. For all the religious and philosophical debate Dragon Age inspires, "Might Makes Right" is still very much the order of the day.

Jayngfet

2014-05-20, 09:25 AM

Archpaladin Zousha

2014-05-20, 09:26 AM

Or pretty friggin' scary.

Morty

2014-05-20, 09:32 AM

I honestly liked Carver. Yes, he's entitled, angry and passive-aggressive. But it's believable. In a Mage Hawke playthrough, he's the sole non-mage child of a powerful mage. He can hardly be blamed for feeling insecure and unappreciated. Call me weird, but I'm perfectly fine with NPCs who are hostile, disruptive or just plain evil - as long as it's believable and interesting. Carver grew up among mages (again, if Hawke is also a mage, but since he dies if Hawke isn't, it doesn't really matter) whose gift shaped his family's entire life. He understandably feels like a fifth wheel.

Psyren

2014-05-20, 09:39 AM

You know, I kind of want to actually see the Imperium at this point. I mean it seems super messed up, but so do Orlais and the Free Marches and Orzimmar when you get down to it. But that many blood mages being given free reign must look really cool if nothing else.

They're not exactly given free reign. Nominally, blood magic is as banned there as it is everywhere else; the magisters use it of course, but it's an open secret and considered taboo.

Their class system is cool. It's almost a meritocracy, except of course the only virtue they recognize is magical ability. But it's still possible for a Laetan (mage from a common family) to ascend all the way to the status of Archon, and indeed one-third of the Archons throughout their history have done so. The rest of the Archons Altus, which are the wealthy mage families that predate Andraste's march.

What I'm really interested in is their Chantry, which (a) allows male priests (b) has their own Divine, who is usually an Enchanter from their own Circle, and (c) has much more liberal views of magic in general than the Chantry proper.

I honestly liked Carver. Yes, he's entitled, angry and passive-aggressive. But it's believable. In a Mage Hawke playthrough, he's the sole non-mage child of a powerful mage. He can hardly be blamed for feeling insecure and unappreciated. Call me weird, but I'm perfectly fine with NPCs who are hostile, disruptive or just plain evil - as long as it's believable and interesting. Carver grew up among mages (again, if Hawke is also a mage, but since he dies if Hawke isn't, it doesn't really matter) whose gift shaped his family's entire life. He understandably feels like a fifth wheel.

This is exactly the point I made in the last thread. And to repeat an earlier point - to make matters worse, his mother is the biggest mage fangirl in Thedas. I could just see her delighting over Hawke and Bethany's magical tricks, and taking pains to protect them when the Templars came 'round, while not paying a lick of attention to Carver's martial training or indeed anything else about his life. Hell, she didn't even know he was planning to be a Templar until he did it.

It would be like if Edward and Alphonse had a third brother who couldn't do a thing with alchemy, and was forced to watch from the sidelines while the first two continually ran to their mother with their creations.

Dienekes

2014-05-20, 10:29 AM

I would have gone with Dragon Age III.2 Where We Complain About Dragon Age II. But yours is good.

Giggling Ghast

2014-05-20, 10:58 AM

Someone else on the Bioware forum pointed out that the next game is ripe for Green Lantern jokes, on account of the Inquisitor's glowing green hand and his enemies have a red power source. I was thinking of using the first two lines of my reworked GL oath for the next thread title.

"In brightest Fade,
In blackest Blight,
No demon shall escape my sight.
Let those who seek red lyrium's might
Beware the Inquisition's light."

On a side note, they said we'll be visiting Halamshiral in the new game.

ShinyRocks

2014-05-20, 12:04 PM

Carver's a total jerk, but he's a believable, convincingly written jerk. I distinguish between 'I like them' and 'well written character'. If they're both, like Aveline, so much the better, but I'm happy with not liking characters who are jerks. It's where I fell down with Merrill. I get all the blah blah good intentions, but she's all 'I'm doing this for my people!' and you can never say 'I understand that, but still...' The game doesn't let you acknowledge the scope of what she's aiming for, and it makes you both look like idiots. A few tweaks to the dialogue and I'd have found her a lot more palatable.

The Dwarf Noble origin in DAO is probably my favourite. It's just ... really really good.

Isabela is so squishy at first, but I've kept her on my team the whole time this play through (to max out the rivalry so she'd come back), and now that I've got her to 80% dodge chance, she's pretty much invincible. And she actually shows a bit of depth in Chapter 3, I'm discovering, so that's nice.

Also, keeping her meant I could get the Ambrosia for the Potion of Heroism. Which: 8 gold to level up every single team member? Don't mind if I do!

Zevox

2014-05-20, 12:24 PM

But... dwarves are awesome.
We evidently have different definitions of "awesome." :smalltongue:

Aside from Fenris' hatred of mages, I honestly liked the guy. Very pragmatic and snarky. And I can at least understand his distrust of mages - Tevinter is a seriously messed up place - I just wish he had left his prejudices at home. Though he tends to give Anders and Merrill a harder time than Hawke and Bethany.
Yeah, that's pretty much where I stand with him as well. I understand where he's coming from, but argued with him constantly.

I honestly liked Carver. Yes, he's entitled, angry and passive-aggressive. But it's believable. In a Mage Hawke playthrough, he's the sole non-mage child of a powerful mage. He can hardly be blamed for feeling insecure and unappreciated. Call me weird, but I'm perfectly fine with NPCs who are hostile, disruptive or just plain evil - as long as it's believable and interesting. Carver grew up among mages (again, if Hawke is also a mage, but since he dies if Hawke isn't, it doesn't really matter) whose gift shaped his family's entire life. He understandably feels like a fifth wheel.
Agreed. I'd say Carver is very much the better written and more interesting of the Hawke siblings, despite being so unpleasant. Bethany is just kind of a bland nice girl, while Carver has actual issues and character flaws that arise naturally from the sort of life he's had.

On another note, I started up that Mage I mentioned last time. Oh god, the animations in DA:O are worse than I remember. People can complain all they want about the staff-fu in DA2 being over-the-top, but I'll take that any day over the awkward, unnatural way Mages in DA:O hold their staffs when using them.

Psyren

2014-05-20, 12:54 PM

I disagree on Bethany being bland. She too is well-written for her circumstance. Remember that when Bethany makes it to Kirkwall, she is the only mage among the Hawke children. She is sweet and nice because that is her survival mechanism - she depends on the good graces of others to help her hide, and has been protected from society by her muggle brothers all her life. She also feels constant guilt because she is cursed with the ability to help people and make a difference in their lives, yet is unable to truly make use of it for fear of discovery. You can hear the envy in her voice when she tells Anders that she would never be brave enough to escape the Circle like he did, and even that he reminds her of Hawke's father. She is also wistful when talking with Merrill about Dalish mages, and when Merrill asks her what she would wish for, she wants only to be free of magic.

In short: Bethany, like Carver, is written exactly as I'd expect a child in their circumstance to be written - to the point that I can only imagine them being completely different people if both had survived to reach Kirkwall no matter what class Hawke himself/herself was.

Dienekes

2014-05-20, 12:58 PM

We evidently have different definitions of "awesome." :smalltongue:

*grumbles around muttering about knife eared loving pansies*

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-20, 01:13 PM

@Nerd-o-Rama:
The point is not "friends who do something wrong". The point is "friends" who against your advice provoke a war, commits terrorism, and similar things. I don't know about you, but I avoid people like that.

Beowulf DW

2014-05-20, 01:45 PM

Psyren

2014-05-20, 01:56 PM

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-20, 02:02 PM

I agree that what Anders did was terrible, however necessary. Many innocents died in that church. But killing him won't bring any of them back to life, and Hawke has no authority (moral or otherwise) to slaughter an unarmed man. Knifing him as he placidly sits, back to you, accepting his fate is just petty murder for the sake of revenge. It's also more than a little irresponsible - we have no idea what Justice could/would do if "freed" in that manner. (I wouldn't be surprised if Anders can show up in DAI as a Justice-animated lich, humanity burned to a crisp, if he "died" in DA2; hell, they might do that to him even if you let him live!)

The only dubious authority you have in that moment was Meredith te
lling you to kill him. By doing so, you're tacitly agreeing that Templars have the authority to slaughter mages with no more due process than the KC's say-so. In short, you're proving Anders' point for him.

This rings hollow to me...

1. It most definitely was NOT neccesary
2. He needs to be punished, if not by you then by Meredith.
3. Petty revenge? No. For what he did, if we were going for revenge, a truly painful torture of a death would be more what he deserves. This is an execution of a criminal, not revenge.
4. Lich? This sounds very much like it's pulled out of thin air.
5. By doing the deed, Anders GIVES the Templars the right to do it. Seriously.

Psyren

2014-05-20, 02:07 PM

This rings hollow to me...

1. It most definitely was NOT neccesary
2. He needs to be punished, if not by you then by Meredith.
3. Petty revenge? No. For what he did, if we were going for revenge, a truly painful torture of a death would be more what he deserves. This is an execution of a criminal, not revenge.
4. Lich? This sounds very much like it's pulled out of thin air.
5. By doing the deed, Anders GIVES the Templars the right to do it. Seriously.

1) What other options were there? Elthina sure wasn't coming up with any.
2) Even if you believe that, there are punishments besides getting shanked in the street. And for what? Who in that blast was brought back by killing him?
3) You have no right to execute anyone. Who elected you? What trial did he get? Who convicted him?
4) I'm speculating of course, but I simply doubt they're done with Anders even if you stabbed him.
5) We disagree. Seriously.

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-20, 02:12 PM

1) What other options were there? Elthina sure wasn't coming up with any.
2) Even if you believe that, there are punishments besides getting shanked in the street. And for what? Who in that blast was brought back by killing him?
3) You have no right to execute anyone. Who elected you? What trial did he get? Who convicted him?
4) I'm speculating of course, but I simply doubt they're done with Anders even if you stabbed him.
5) We disagree. Seriously.

1. So?
2. Irrelevant.
3. I don't know? The same person who said I could chop criminals up in the street or break into their houses and burn them alive with magic? It's an odd time to point out the lack of legal status...
5. Indeed we do.

Psyren

2014-05-20, 02:25 PM

So?

So I don't see why the lives of the mages being systematically lobotomized/slaughtered don't matter to you.

"Now we can all stop pretending the Circle is a solution."

Irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant - Hawke has no elected position nor divine right to decide who lives and dies beyond protecting his/her own life (see below.)

I don't know? The same person who said I could chop criminals up in the street or break into their houses and burn them alive with magic? It's an odd time to point out the lack of legal status...

There's a slight difference between lethal force used in self-defense and stabbing an unarmed man in the back, don't you think?

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-20, 02:35 PM

So I don't see why the lives of the mages being systematically lobotomized/slaughtered don't matter to you.

---

There's a slight difference between lethal force used in self-defense and stabbing an unarmed man in the back, don't you think?

Since I was leaning towards supporting the circle due to well 99% of all mages you meet deserving lobotomizing might have something to do with it...

---

Normally I despite vigilantes (IRL) but in games that are based on that premise (like say every single Bioware game ever) I don't have a problem with it. And no, in that context I don't see a difference. It's no difference than my Shepard letting Mordin shoot Maelon or Miranda shooting Niket.

Nerd-o-rama

2014-05-20, 02:35 PM

Not a clue what you're getting at with this comment. :smallconfused:

Elthina was a neutral party. Zapp Brannigan hates Neutrals ("With enemies you know where you stand, but with Neutrals? Who knows?") That's all I'm getting at.

Okay, I'll oblige - let's put aside real life examples and stick just with the game. I assume then that you were okay with the Tevinter Imperium mass-enslaving the elves (among others) and sacrificing them by the pound for their Fade experiments? Because Andraste didn't exactly write them a scathing editorial in the local paper, nor did she perform a hunger strike on their doorstep.

I'm as big a fan of peaceful assembly as any, but I also recognize that it does not always work and drastic measures are sometimes warranted. And while I would avoid all collateral damage if I could, that is not always feasible.

I tend to count mass armed rebellion of an occupied or disenfranchised nation as a different beast from Anders's one-man bomb plot shenanigans, although that's probably just because I'm American and have a historical bias. There is a difference in my mind, though, between one dude murdering a bunch of tangentially-connected clergy in a half-baked plan to inspire similar targeted uprisings and an occupied, enslaved populace rallying behind a queen and going full Romanes Eunt Domus.

Hell, I'd even have been happier if he blew up the Gallows to try and gank Meredith (oppressor) and Orsino (perceived collaborator) at the same time, although of course then where would the final boss fight be (and who would it be, if he succeeded). At least that would have been attacking his actual enemies instead of a third party that was simply getting in the way.

(I could also point out how badly Andraste's good intentions got mangled by some of her followers, but that happens to literally every revolution/rebellion, so she gets a pass.)

Also, back to Anders's fate, I killed him partly out of emotional reaction, but also because he was frankly an Abomination who needed to be put down. I played a Mage Hawke, and one that was fundamentally against the Circle system, but he still didn't put up with that crap from anybody. And I figured it was better to put him down immediately than let him cause more damage running from the Templars.

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-20, 02:36 PM

I tend to count mass armed rebellion of an occupied or disenfranchised nation as a different beast from Anders's one-man bomb plot shenanigans

Indeed. An organized uprising and guerilla warfare is a different beast from isolated fanatics committing terrorism.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-20, 02:39 PM

Hawke has no authority (moral or otherwise) to slaughter an unarmed man.
While I'm in the pro-mage camp, I don't think you can call a mage an "unarmed man" unless you know he is completely drained of mana and won't regenerate it. When would you call an abomination "unarmed" I can't even begin to imagine... ;P

It's also more than a little irresponsible - we have no idea what Justice could/would do if "freed" in that manner. (I wouldn't be surprised if Anders can show up in DAI as a Justice-animated lich, humanity burned to a crisp, if he "died" in DA2; hell, they might do that to him even if you let him live!)
And what are the alternatives? Let him go? At least as dangerous. Keep him imprisoned? Again, we do not know how his Spirit would react (it's not really justice at that point - it is vengeance), so it isn't a risk much smaller than killing on the spot.

The only dubious authority you have in that moment was Meredith telling you to kill him. By doing so, you're tacitly agreeing that Templars have the authority to slaughter mages with no more due process than the KC's say-so. In short, you're proving Anders' point for him.
Since when is killing a known terrorist equal to slaughtering people due to the actions of a completely separate party? Also note that she was the de facto ruler of the city at that time which means keeping the law fell under her jurisdiction. I doubt that the penalty for blowing up the chantry and killing who knows how many civilians would be anything other than death.

And for what? Who in that blast was brought back by killing him?
The same number of people that would be brought back if he was killed after a trial (or imprisoned for life)?

Psyren

2014-05-20, 02:45 PM

Since I was leaning towards supporting the circle due to well 99% of all mages you meet deserving lobotomizing might have something to do with it...

---

Normally I despite vigilantes (IRL) but in games that are based on that premise (like say every single Bioware game ever) I don't have a problem with it. And no, in that context I don't see a difference. It's no difference than my Shepard letting Mordin shoot Maelon or Miranda shooting Niket.

Of course you meet more bad mages than not. The good ones are quietly living in the tower already (getting lobotomized.)

My Paragon Shepard stopped both of those shootings. Because that's the Paragon thing to do. See what I mean? Not self defense, just murder. (Shepard even explicitly calls it murder in Maelon's case.)

I tend to count mass armed rebellion of an occupied or disenfranchised nation as a different beast from Anders's one-man bomb plot shenanigans, although that's probably just because I'm American and have a historical bias. There is a difference in my mind, though, between one dude murdering a bunch of tangentially-connected clergy in a half-baked plan to inspire similar targeted uprisings and an occupied, enslaved populace rallying behind a queen and going full Romanes Eunt Domus.

But in both, innocents died. You can't tell me that Andraste's march killed not a single bystander, that it laser-targeted only the evil people in the Imperium, that the sieges she laid did not cause townsfolk and slaves alike to suffer along with the nobles, nor even that no slaves died (fighting or not.)

Hell, I'd even have been happier if he blew up the Gallows to try and gank Meredith (oppressor) and Orsino (perceived collaborator) at the same time, although of course then where would the final boss fight be (and who would it be, if he succeeded). At least that would have been attacking his actual enemies instead of a third party that was simply getting in the way.

...What? You know the Gallows is full of good mages, right? The very people he's trying to save? :smallconfused:

(I could also point out how badly Andraste's good intentions got mangled by some of her followers, but that happens to literally every revolution/rebellion, so she gets a pass.)

Mangled or not, her intentions are irrelevant. Only results matter in the end. She paid a heavy price but she did what was necessary.

Thialfi

2014-05-20, 02:49 PM

My personal problem with Anders, for what it's worth, was not that he started a war. Desperate times call for desperate measures. It was how he started it. Blowing up a place of worship with innocents inside does not sit well with me. At all. So I knifed him. What he did was reprehensible, and he had to be punished.

I killed him in both my games as well.

Not only did I think his actions were monstrous, I believe his solution actually would make the problem worse. Anyone who was on the fence before he murdered innocents just swung to the chantry's side. He also killed one of the few people in authority who actually might have been sympathetic to the plight of mages.

Even before his terrorist act, he won the douchebag of the year award in my eyes. Using a friend by asking them to help you do something highly illegal, no questions asked, then brushing aside logical concerns and getting upset at you when you decline to help under his conditions would have, at best, destroyed any positive feelings I had toward him.

Zevox

2014-05-20, 02:53 PM

My personal problem with Anders, for what it's worth, was not that he started a war. Desperate times call for desperate measures. It was how he started it. Blowing up a place of worship with innocents inside does not sit well with me. At all. So I knifed him. What he did was reprehensible, and he had to be punished.
Indeed. While I did hesitate, since there seems some merit to offering him the chance to redeem himself by helping clean up the mess he caused, I ultimately could not let his actions go unpunished either. No matter how much I agree with Anders' motives, his methods were atrocious, and lacking any trustworthy proper authorities to turn him over to, doling out the punishment yourself is all you're left with at that point.

Psyren

2014-05-20, 02:58 PM

While I'm in the pro-mage camp, I don't think you can call a mage an "unarmed man" unless you know he is completely drained of mana and won't regenerate it. When would you call an abomination "unarmed" I can't even begin to imagine... ;P

Irrelevant - he surrendered. He was not attempting to defend himself.

And what are the alternatives? Let him go? At least as dangerous. Keep him imprisoned? Again, we do not know how his Spirit would react (it's not really justice at that point - it is vengeance), so it isn't a risk much smaller than killing on the spot.

You could say the same of any mage. Why not strangle them in the cradle then, or while children? Why bother with the Circle at all?

Since when is killing a known terrorist equal to slaughtering people due to the actions of a completely separate party? Also note that she was the de facto ruler of the city at that time which means keeping the law fell under her jurisdiction. I doubt that the penalty for blowing up the chantry and killing who knows how many civilians would be anything other than death.

She was never ruler of the city in any capacity. She controlled its biggest military force (the Templars) - that's it. There was no Viscount and Meredith was actively blocking all attempts to appoint one.

The same number of people that would be brought back if he was killed after a trial (or imprisoned for life)?

Exactly, zero. So let him live and atone. He can't save any lives dead.

Nerd-o-rama

2014-05-20, 03:00 PM

But in both, innocents died. You can't tell me that Andraste's march killed not a single bystander, that it laser-targeted only the evil people in the Imperium, that the sieges she laid did not cause townsfolk and slaves alike to suffer along with the nobles, nor even that no slaves died (fighting or not.)

[...]

Mangled or not, her intentions are irrelevant. Only results matter in the end. She paid a heavy price but she did what was necessary.

Intentions might not justify actions, but they do in fact matter, at least on an emotional level to me. It's also a matter of how it's gone about. Waging war on an enemy empire, for whatever reason? It's a terrible thing, but barring severe economic or social distress on the enemy's side, it's pretty much the only way to affect change. Killing a bunch of priestesses because you want two other loosely-connected groups to fight? I just plain don't get the justification.

...What? You know the Gallows is full of good mages, right? The very people he's trying to save? :smallconfused:

If you're going to kill a bunch of innocent people, I just think you should at least try to kill your actual enemies in the process. Seems like a bit of a waste, otherwise.

I mean, hell, now that I think about the situation further, all Anders had to do was wait ten minutes for Lyrium Ninja and the Corpse Brigade to walk over to Hightown and he could have killed three birds with one bomb. That would have made much more sense. It would have also, of course, solved the immediate problem (or made it worse because of panicking, leaderless Mages and panicking, leaderless Templars if Cullen or some other sane ranking knight didn't survive) without definitely starting a global war, which was of course Anders/Vengeance's real purpose. Not saving anyone in Kirkwall, but forcing a globalized war by making everyone on both sides as radical as Meredith was. Exactly as a spirit/demon would want it.

She was never ruler of the city in any capacity. She controlled its biggest military force (the Templars) - that's it. There was no Viscount and Meredith was actively blocking all attempts to appoint one.

"De facto" is a Latin(-ish) phrase meaning "of/in fact" - in other words, in the reality of the situation but not on paper or in the law. Generally the de facto ruler of anything without a ruler appointed by law or tradition is going to be the person with the most weapons. Meredith kept a stranglehold on power in the city with both political clout and threat of force because she didn't want to give up her newfound power, specifically it's violent application toward the Mage Circle.

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-20, 03:05 PM

My Paragon Shepard stopped both of those shootings. Because that's the Paragon thing to do. See what I mean? Not self defense, just murder. (Shepard even explicitly calls it murder in Maelon's case.)

Only if you stop it (and note that it is a paragon INTERRUPT to, it is not a RENEGADE choice NOT to stop Mordin). Otherwise Paragon Shep is okay with it.
Computer game writing is funny that way.

Regarding Anders:
“Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes execute dangerous people. Either way helps.”

Psyren

2014-05-20, 03:07 PM

Intentions might not justify actions, but they do in fact matter, at least on an emotional level to me. It's also a matter of how it's gone about. Waging war on an enemy empire, for whatever reason? It's a terrible thing, but barring severe economic or social distress on the enemy's side, it's pretty much the only way to affect change. Killing a bunch of priestesses because you want two other loosely-connected groups to fight? I just plain don't get the justification.
...
If you're going to kill a bunch of innocent people, I just think you should at least try to kill your actual enemies in the process. Seems like a bit of a waste, otherwise.

Elthina is not "loosely connected." She is Meredith's ranking officer according to Chantry hierarchy. Her abject failure to act makes her equally culpable in all of Meredith's crimes.

She is most certainly an enemy.

I mean, hell, now that I think about the situation further, all Anders had to do was wait ten minutes for Lyrium Ninja and the Corpse Brigade

Er... who?

"De facto" is a Latin(-ish) phrase meaning "of/in fact" - in other words, in the reality of the situation but not on paper or in the law. Generally the de facto ruler of anything without a ruler appointed by law or tradition is going to be the person with the most weapons.

I know what de facto means. That doesn't make it right or give me any reason to acknowledge her authority. By that logic, Andraste was wrong for wanting to oppose the Imperium because (initially) they had a bigger army.

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-20, 03:07 PM

If you're going to kill a bunch of innocent people, I just think you should at least try to kill your actual enemies in the process. Seems like a bit of a waste, otherwise.

Exactly. Bomb the Templar barracks? MAYBE an act of war. Bomb innocent people not connected to the "cause"? TERRORISM.

Nerd-o-rama

2014-05-20, 03:13 PM

Elthina is not "loosely connected." She is Meredith's ranking officer according to Chantry hierarchy. Her abject failure to act makes her equally culpable in all of Meredith's crimes.

She is most certainly an enemy.

You know, I'd actually forgotten that fact, largely because everyone in the game ignored that power dynamic to the point where any sufficiently politically connected and popular figure could have taken Elthina's place. Meredith sure as hell wasn't taking orders from her, or at least anything more complicated than "SIT! STAY!"

You're right, though, there was a negligent lack of use of power there. Meredith honestly should have been relieved well before Act 3 started, and I forgot that that was Elthina's responsibility simply because she never even tries.

I feel less sorry for her now, but not so much the other (non Qunari-baiting jackass) priestesses.

Er... who?

Meredith and Orsino, based on their boss forms.

I know what de facto means. That doesn't make it right or give me any reason to acknowledge her authority. By that logic, Andraste was wrong for wanting to oppose the Imperium because (initially) they had a bigger army.

The authority to have people stabbed if they disobey is still authority. It's just up to the individual whether to acknowledge it or not.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-20, 03:13 PM

You could say the same of any mage. Why not strangle them in the cradle then, or while children? Why bother with the Circle at all?
Because most of them don't end as mass-murderers sparking global wars? Most aren't even abominations.

She was never ruler of the city in any capacity. She controlled its biggest military force (the Templars) - that's it. There was no Viscount and Meredith was actively blocking all attempts to appoint one.
And yet we had already happily taken the title of Champion from her hands. A title bestowed only by a city ruler.

Exactly, zero. So let him live and atone. He can't save any lives dead.
He also can't cause any more deaths when dead. And who knows what crazy idea he might come up with if the war would went bad. Or if the mages weren't aggressive enough for his tastes. Or if he'd be overcome by Vengeance.

Psyren

2014-05-20, 04:06 PM

Meredith and Orsino, based on their boss forms.

I think he already planted the bomb, and based it around Elthina's schedule. Certainly I didn't see him do anything overt to detonate it that would have allowed him to delay until Meredith + Orsino wandered into the blast radius.

Besides which, right up until Orsino lost his marbles he was the voice of reason. There was no reason to attack him before that point.

I definitely think they should have gone with their original plan of having only one or the other be the final boss depending on the path you took.

The authority to have people stabbed if they disobey is still authority. It's just up to the individual whether to acknowledge it or not.

"Might makes right?" That's not exactly a point in your favor. Any two-copper fascist can claim the same. (Not calling you one, just saying that's the same logic they would use.)

Because most of them don't end as mass-murderers sparking global wars? Most aren't even abominations.

You know, that word amuses me. Some books call shrimp an abomination. :smalltongue:
In any event, again I point to Andraste, another "spark of global war." Also Wynne, another "abomination" who was running amok.

And yet we had already happily taken the title of Champion from her hands. A title bestowed only by a city ruler.

A title that didn't mean anything! It was like an honorary doctorate. (You know those people aren't really doctors right? :smalltongue:)

Literally it's only purpose was a narrative excuse to let mageHawke walk around Hightown without being collared, and I can only imagine how much longer Meredith was going to let that tomfoolery continue.

He also can't cause any more deaths when dead. And who knows what crazy idea he might come up with if the war would went bad. Or if the mages weren't aggressive enough for his tastes. Or if he'd be overcome by Vengeance.

If we executed everyone we thought might go crazy, we'd be drowning in blood. And, once again, you'd probably have to start with all the mages.

He certainly wasn't crazy/dangerous while sitting down placidly, letting you execute him.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-20, 04:12 PM

Also Wynne, another "abomination" who was running amok.
I'm pretty sure she didn't bomb any buildings.

A title that didn't mean anything! It was like an honorary doctorate. (You know those people aren't really doctors right? :smalltongue:)
Of course it doesn't - but that doesn't mean anyone can assign it (just like with those honorary doctorates).

If we executed everyone we thought might go crazy, we'd be drowning in blood. And, once again, you'd probably have to start with all the mages.
He is a terrorist that wanted to spark a war who is also responsible both directly and indirectly for the deaths of innocents. There is a slight difference between that and any other person.

He certainly wasn't crazy/dangerous while sitting down placidly, letting you execute him.
And he didn't seem that crazy a few minutes before blowing up the Chantry.

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-20, 04:19 PM

Also Wynne, another "abomination" who was running amok.

Yes that is exactly the same thing. Maleficent and Tinkerbell are also equally bad.
Seriously though... what?

Giggling Ghast

2014-05-20, 04:19 PM

Ultimately, I don't really care about Elthina's murder; killing an unarmed civilian was a terrible act, but she was warned repeatedly to either leave the city or take a stand. Sooner or later, Meredith would have cottoned on to the idea of arranging for her assassination and she would be dead anyway.

No, I kill Anders because he doesn't get to condemn the rest of the Circle to martyrdom for his cause and then run off to the hills to be the mage equivalent of Pancho Villa. And I don't care about executing him in combat or out of it; most criminals executed for capital crimes aren't given a chance to "fight back."

Psyren

2014-05-20, 04:26 PM

Yes that is exactly the same thing. Maleficent and Tinkerbell are also equally bad.
Seriously though... what?

I'm talking about the emotional fallacy associated with that word. Judge Anders based on his actions, not merely the fact that he has a passenger.

Of course it doesn't - but that doesn't mean anyone can assign it (just like with those honorary doctorates).

But no authority comes with it.

When you offer to run the city instead of the two of them, Meredith snaps "that's not your place" and you never get to bring up the possibility again.

He is a terrorist that wanted to spark a war who is also responsible both directly and indirectly for the deaths of innocents. There is a slight difference between that and any other person.

Whereas Meredith simply wanted the freedom to kill innocents without anything as noisy as a war.

And he didn't seem that crazy a few minutes before blowing up the Chantry.

How was he crazy? What would your solution have been?

Ajadea

2014-05-20, 04:29 PM

(sorry for derail)

I'm playing through Awakening, but I'm having a problem. Brought Nathaniel/Velanna/Sigrun along to the Dragonbone Wastes. I have maximum Coercion and something like 40 cunning, but I can't stop Sigrun from fighting me. She says no, the screen goes black for like 10 seconds, then it comes back and we're fighting. Yet I know it should be possible to keep her in the party, albeit at significant disapproval. So what gives? Does she need to have higher approval (hers is about 60), or is this a bug? If it is a bug, are there fixes?

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-20, 04:32 PM

I'm talking about the emotional fallacy associated with that word. Judge Anders based on his actions, not merely the fact that he has a passenger.

Oh I don't consider him an Abomination. I consider him a monster.
An Abomination in the Dragon Age universe is very easily identifiable.
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091130200211/dragonage/images/4/47/Creature-Abomination.jpg

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-20, 04:44 PM

I'm talking about the emotional fallacy associated with that word. Judge Anders based on his actions, not merely the fact that he has a passenger.
He is a terrorist and murderer who started a war - just about anyone would say that deserves capital punishment (life sentence if they are opposed to that sort of thing).

Whereas Meredith simply wanted the freedom to kill innocents without anything as noisy as a war.
Doesn't change what he did nor how it should be judged.

How was he crazy? What would your solution have been?
Do I need to have a solution to a problem to be able to judge a proposed one as crazy? I don't buy that - just like I ignore arguments like "don't criticize unless you can do it better".

I'm playing through Awakening, but I'm having a problem. Brought Nathaniel/Velanna/Sigrun along to the Dragonbone Wastes. I have maximum Coercion and something like 40 cunning, but I can't stop Sigrun from fighting me. She says no, the screen goes black for like 10 seconds, then it comes back and we're fighting. Yet I know it should be possible to keep her in the party, albeit at significant disapproval. So what gives? Does she need to have higher approval (hers is about 60), or is this a bug? If it is a bug, are there fixes?
I don't think I've seen such a bug mentioned anywhere, so it is possible she requires higher approval.

Math_Mage

2014-05-20, 04:56 PM

I'm talking about the emotional fallacy associated with that word. Judge Anders based on his actions, not merely the fact that he has a passenger.
Except that you manifestly don't want to judge Anders for his multiple murder because someone else (notably, not the people Anders murdered) was also committing heinous acts. Does not compute.

Psyren

2014-05-20, 05:23 PM

He is a terrorist and murderer who started a war - just about anyone would say that deserves capital punishment (life sentence if they are opposed to that sort of thing).

And Meredith is also a terrorist and murderer. Which leaves only the war as the differentiating factor, and considering that I see the war as a good thing, that gives Anders a leg up.

Doesn't change what he did nor how it should be judged.

That's my point - who gave Hawke the right to pass that judgment? Answer - a crazy murderer.

Do I need to have a solution to a problem to be able to judge a proposed one as crazy? I don't buy that - just like I ignore arguments like "don't criticize unless you can do it better".

But if doing nothing is equally crazy then you're damned either way. May as well take the long shot.

Except that you manifestly don't want to judge Anders for his multiple murder because someone else (notably, not the people Anders murdered) was also committing heinous acts. Does not compute.

Wrong - I don't want to judge him because I have no right to do that except (a) to protect my own life or (b) prevent imminent harm to someone else. The authority of a psycho like Meredith means nothing to me.

If you want to leave him, and then fight him later inside the tower when he attacks you, that is infinitely different than simply butchering him on the sidewalk.

Ailurus

2014-05-20, 06:17 PM

I'm talking about the emotional fallacy associated with that word. Judge Anders based on his actions, not merely the fact that he has a passenger.

Its not just a passenger, though. While you can easily argue that he is not really a "traditional" abomination (even when glowy eyes mode takes over, he's certainly not the twisted monstrosity other abominations are), there's simply no denying that Vengeance is at best heavily influencing him, if not controlling him entirely by the end. On multiple occasions throughout the game, the Spirit completely takes over Anders, in both conversation and combat. And if you talk to him after the bombings

On the rivalry path (emphasis mine)

Vengeance ... took me over. I couldn't stop him. Justice once told me that demons are spirits perverted by their desires. I made my friend a demon. And he did this... Kill me now before there is nothing left of me.

On the friendship path (emphasis mine)

I took a spirit into my soul and changed myself forever to achieve this .... when we merged, he ceased to be. We are one now.

While he still has moments of lucidity, in both cases he flat out says that the Spirit has irrevocably changed if not overwritten what he was before. He's not human anymore, he's something ... different.

Rodin

2014-05-20, 06:24 PM

The correct thing to do would be to turn him over to the local authorities.

But...

What system of law was in place at that point in the story? The Viscount is already dead. So is the leader of the Chantry. The Mages and Templars are in the middle of a civil war. As Champion, you are the closest thing to the rule of law the city has left. The leader of the faction you side with explicitly leaves Anders' fate in your hands. Aveline, the Captain of the Guard, advises you to kill him. I think the only people who vote to let him come with you are Merrill and Isabela, the two least law-abiding party members.

On a Lawful v. Chaotic scale, it's pretty clear to me where executing Anders lands. My Hawke played it exactly that way - without a proper authority and exactly zero time to look for one, he delivered justice as best he could.

Psyren

2014-05-20, 06:55 PM

Its not just a passenger, though. While you can easily argue that he is not really a "traditional" abomination (even when glowy eyes mode takes over, he's certainly not the twisted monstrosity other abominations are), there's simply no denying that Vengeance is at best heavily influencing him, if not controlling him entirely by the end. On multiple occasions throughout the game, the Spirit completely takes over Anders, in both conversation and combat. And if you talk to him after the bombings

On the rivalry path (emphasis mine)

On the friendship path (emphasis mine)

While he still has moments of lucidity, in both cases he flat out says that the Spirit has irrevocably changed if not overwritten what he was before. He's not human anymore, he's something ... different.

On the rivalry path, I agree, he is Justice's puppet. But on the friendship path, it is his choice, merely amplified by Justice. "I could no more ignore the injustice of the Circle than he could."

Aveline, the Captain of the Guard, advises you to kill him.

No, she does not. Fenris (predictably) is the only person that says this.

All Aveline says is that his belief doesn't justify what he has done. She disapproves, but does not go so far as to advocate cutting him down in the street.

On a Lawful v. Chaotic scale, it's pretty clear to me where executing Anders lands. My Hawke played it exactly that way - without a proper authority and exactly zero time to look for one, he delivered justice as best he could.

Even if there truly was no other option but to shank him in the street - which I have not ceded - Law vs. Chaos is still not Right vs. Wrong.

Beowulf DW

2014-05-20, 07:05 PM

@ Psyren:

The atrocities of one monster do not lessen the atrocities of another. What Meredith was doing was horrible, but since when does that excuse the people that oppose her sinking to her level? I killed Anders because he killed innocents. I killed Meredith because she killed innocents. One acknowledged justice and accepted hi fate, and the other chose to fight. That's really the only difference between the two.

As for your comparisons with Andraste. Yes, war is hell. It harms everything it touches. Andraste likely caused numerous innocents to suffer because of the consequences of her war. However, conducting a military campaign with an opposing army and government as your target and deliberately-deliberately-killing civilians to start one are very different things.

Also, I'd like to address a point you made about not killing Anders for fear of what the spirit/demon within him might do. The thing is, if we applied that logic to all abominations, we'd never kill any of them. I think it's been well established that the best way to deal with most abominations is to kill them. Maybe the spirit returns to the Fade; maybe it's destroyed. So far, no abominations we've killed across the two games has come back for more, though. If that's what happened to those demons, I'm pretty sure it would have shown up as a side quest by now.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-20, 07:15 PM

That's my point - who gave Hawke the right to pass that judgment? Answer - a crazy murderer.
I won't stop myself from putting down a psycho just because another psycho wants to give me the right to do that.

But if doing nothing is equally crazy then you're damned either way. May as well take the long shot.
And start by making dozens of mages martyrs and having others be targeted by templars before they learn what's happening (if things went according to plan). That's a veeeeeeery long shot indeed.

No, she does not. Fenris (predictably) is the only person that says this.
Directly. What Sebastian means by saying "You know what has to be done" is rather obvious. Of course you always can argue he is not a person ;P

Dienekes

2014-05-20, 07:23 PM

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept that Hawke has no authority.

You literally spend the majority of the game investigating and bringing about justice at the tip of your blade. You get to decide who lives and who dies and why, whether they are attack or not throughout the game. Admittedly, most of these are all small potatoes compared to Anders, but you get to play judge, jury, and executioner.

Sorry, but if you're hung up on not acting as judge because you don't have the authority, how did you ever get through the game? I mean regardless of the decision made. If Meredith gives you a task, she's the authority, so if you go against her authority then you're automatically taking up a position as judge. Same with any decision you make.

And that doesn't even get to, how in the instant of Anders bombing, there actually is an authority (Meredith) who would say he should die. I mean you can choose to ignore her (which is reasonable, she is a lunatic), the other authority had just been killed, by Anders.

I mean, say you'll side with Anders. Say his actions are justified. I disagree with you, but at least I can wrap my head around the belief. But not being justified in killing him or having the authority to do so? I don't see it.

Jayngfet

2014-05-20, 07:44 PM

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept that Hawke has no authority.

The way I see it, Hawke totally has the authority to execute. He is, after all, an Amell and a noble of Kirkwall's society. He and his have the right to bear arms publically and to use them should the circumstances require it. In fact, that's kind of his duty, to protect the city at the end of a blade should the circumstances require it. That's why nobility exists as a concept and is enshrined with legal authority to begin with.

If Hawke should execute however, is another matter entirely that's not really relevant. What matters is that he can and is bound by duty to do it.

Giggling Ghast

2014-05-20, 10:08 PM

Whether or not Hawke has the legal authority to execute Anders is kind of moot, considering s/he had been carrying out vigilante justice throughout the game. So did the Warden, more or less.

(sorry for derail)

I'm playing through Awakening, but I'm having a problem. Brought Nathaniel/Velanna/Sigrun along to the Dragonbone Wastes. I have maximum Coercion and something like 40 cunning, but I can't stop Sigrun from fighting me. She says no, the screen goes black for like 10 seconds, then it comes back and we're fighting. Yet I know it should be possible to keep her in the party, albeit at significant disapproval. So what gives? Does she need to have higher approval (hers is about 60), or is this a bug? If it is a bug, are there fixes?

Did you complete her personal quest? I don't know for certain if that's a prerequisite to have her side with you, but it might be.

Psyren

2014-05-20, 10:21 PM

The atrocities of one monster do not lessen the atrocities of another. What Meredith was doing was horrible, but since when does that excuse the people that oppose her sinking to her level?

When you find someone who's sunk to Meredith's level (and you'll probably need a bathysphere for this,) please let me know.

As for your comparisons with Andraste. Yes, war is hell. It harms everything it touches. Andraste likely caused numerous innocents to suffer because of the consequences of her war. However, conducting a military campaign with an opposing army and government as your target and deliberately-deliberately-killing civilians to start one are very different things.

Again, I'm not condoning what he did (at least, not as far as anyone who isn't Elthina is concerned.) But after it is done, I don't see what good shanking him will do besides satisfy some animal need for petty revenge. It certainly won't bring any of those fallen innocents back. The excuse that "oh, we're stopping him from committing another tragedy" is weak and hollow. It's done, the war is on, what other tragedy could he possibly commit at that point? With him alive, you have one of the most powerful soldiers around who can win this for the mages and prevent the Circle and all its atrocities from ever coming back, and thereby prevent the next guy whose childhood friend got tranquilized from doing something similar (except in the middle of a crowded square this time, or maybe in a Chantry during the daytime when it's nice and packed.) Lose him, and you could even end up with the Circle reinstated, nice and ripe for this tragedy to repeat itself in another few decades.

TL;DR: what he did was wrong, but committing murder on top of it is just throwing bad after bad.

Also, I'd like to address a point you made about not killing Anders for fear of what the spirit/demon within him might do. The thing is, if we applied that logic to all abominations, we'd never kill any of them. I think it's been well established that the best way to deal with most abominations is to kill them. Maybe the spirit returns to the Fade; maybe it's destroyed. So far, no abominations we've killed across the two games has come back for more, though. If that's what happened to those demons, I'm pretty sure it would have shown up as a side quest by now.

For the record, I'm not seriously considering that Justice/Vengeance could have detonated or anything so dramatic for stabbing Anders. I was moreso musing on the possibility that Bioware would find a way to put him in DAI no matter what, similar to the Rachni Queen being in ME3 regardless (in some capacity.). As I said before, it was idle speculation on my part.

And start by making dozens of mages martyrs and having others be targeted by templars before they learn what's happening (if things went according to plan). That's a veeeeeeery long shot indeed.

And your alternative is... what? More lobotomies, more crackhead Templars, and the deaths of every mage in Kirkwall anyway. Color me impressed.

Directly. What Sebastian means by saying "You know what has to be done" is rather obvious. Of course you always can argue he is not a person ;P

I overlooked him - as I didn't buy his DLC, in my games he actually wasn't, no. Nor do I really care what he thinks, I have no particular amity for the character and find his "romance" extremely weird to boot.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept that Hawke has no authority.

You literally spend the majority of the game investigating and bringing about justice at the tip of your blade. You get to decide who lives and who dies and why, whether they are attack or not throughout the game. Admittedly, most of these are all small potatoes compared to Anders, but you get to play judge, jury, and executioner.

Pretty sure all or nearly all of those people attack you first unless you're being BastardHawke anyway, so this line of reasoning is moot. I have no problem with self-defense.

And as I said earlier, I don't recognize Meredith's "authority" in any way, shape or form.

Jayngfet

2014-05-20, 10:21 PM

On the rivalry path, I agree, he is Justice's puppet. But on the friendship path, it is his choice, merely amplified by Justice. "I could no more ignore the injustice of the Circle than he could."

I'm only just going through Awakening still and I wouldn't really classify it as his choice, in the grander context. You can audibly hear Justice saying "we should do something drastic and attack the templars", meanwhile Anders is saying "No, that's stupid, because then I'll die a painful death" if you have them both in your party. Anders himself is mostly ok with things as they are so long as he can escape and do apostate stuff.

It's kind of obvious that through the years Justice has been coercing him to act rashly and his control over his own actions is diminishing. Even within a modern legal context that's enough to qualify as coercion. Having someone constantly hound you for a decade wears down the sanity, after all.

Which is interesting, in and of itself, and adds a bit of complexity to fade creatures that they desperately need. I mean Justice is all well and good, but at the end of the day he can only really see the world through the lens of violence and specific goals, and looks down on mere mortals. Meanwhile say, a Desire Demon is usually much more stable, since a large number of them only want to deal with one or two hosts and what amounts to regular experience with some modification. I mean yeah, they deal with subtlety and long games, but Justice has done so much more damage at that there's no real comparison.

Nerd-o-rama

2014-05-20, 10:38 PM

I'm sitting back and watching the debate now, I just want to clarify that there's a difference between moral authority or justification (which Meredith has about as much of as, I don't know, Bartrand or Rendon Howe) and authority as in the ability and resources to boss people around, which Meredith has in spades.

I think that was a point of miscommunication between me, Psyren, and possibly some other folks.

Beowulf DW

2014-05-20, 10:46 PM

Again, I'm not condoning what he did (at least, not as far as anyone who isn't Elthina is concerned.) But after it is done, I don't see what good shanking him will do besides satisfy some animal need for petty revenge. It certainly won't bring any of those fallen innocents back. The excuse that "oh, we're stopping him from committing another tragedy" is weak and hollow. It's done, the war is on, what other tragedy could he possibly commit at that point? With him alive, you have one of the most powerful soldiers around who can win this for the mages and prevent the Circle and all its atrocities from ever coming back, and thereby prevent the next guy whose childhood friend got tranquilized from doing something similar (except in the middle of a crowded square this time, or maybe in a Chantry during the daytime when it's nice and packed.) Lose him, and you could even end up with the Circle reinstated, nice and ripe for this tragedy to repeat itself in another few decades.

TL;DR: what he did was wrong, but committing murder on top of it is just throwing bad after bad.

Well, why did we kill Quentin, then? Hawke's mom and the other women won't be coming back. Why did we kill the Arishok? The Viscount isn't coming back. Why do we "kill [our] way through half of Kirkwall?" And the best part is, Quentin and Arishok probably would have stopped. Quentin had accomplished his goal, the Arishok would have eventually brought Kirkwall under control. They likely wouldn't have caused people any more suffering beyond what they already had. And we killed them anyway. Why? Compared to them, Anders is much more likely to keep causing tragedies. You saw how he turned on that mage we rescued from Alrick. Anders/Vengeance would have killed her if Hawke hadn't been there. He's losing control, slowly but surely. It's only a matter of time before he goes permanently berserk.

Jayngfet

2014-05-20, 11:05 PM

Well, why did we kill Quentin, then? Hawke's mom and the other women won't be coming back. Why did we kill the Arishok? The Viscount isn't coming back. Why do we "kill [our] way through half of Kirkwall?" And the best part is, Quentin and Arishok probably would have stopped. Quentin had accomplished his goal, the Arishok would have eventually brought Kirkwall under control. They likely wouldn't have caused people any more suffering beyond what they already had. And we killed them anyway. Why? Compared to them, Anders is much more likely to keep causing tragedies. You saw how he turned on that mage we rescued from Alrick. Anders/Vengeance would have killed her if Hawke hadn't been there. He's losing control, slowly but surely. It's only a matter of time before he goes permanently berserk.

Exactly. Anders isn't himself and there's no way for him to regain control. At least not without a dozen mages and fifty Lyrium bricks if Conner is anything to go by. The sly, grinning, flirty rogue we fell in love with over Awakening is already gone by the time we see Anders again in 2. By that point Justice is making him do things he knows will kill him, like a divine parasite.

I mean hell, he's building one hell of a bomb from frighteningly common ingredients. What happens if he decides to blow up another Chantry? Or a support line of civilians to starve out a templar camp? Or a ship heading to Amaranthine with important information on rebel mages? Even without magic, Anders is probably one of the most dangerous men out there. Now that you've personally equipped him with some of the best stuff in the world and pushed his powers to the limit, the damage he causes would be unthinkably huge.

Anders is a friend, but he's a friend that's been warped beyond repair and is a danger to himself and everyone around him. He needs to be put down for his own good.

Giggling Ghast

2014-05-20, 11:49 PM

Psyren

2014-05-20, 11:51 PM

I'm only just going through Awakening still and I wouldn't really classify it as his choice, in the grander context. You can audibly hear Justice saying "we should do something drastic and attack the templars", meanwhile Anders is saying "No, that's stupid, because then I'll die a painful death" if you have them both in your party. Anders himself is mostly ok with things as they are so long as he can escape and do apostate stuff.

It's kind of obvious that through the years Justice has been coercing him to act rashly and his control over his own actions is diminishing. Even within a modern legal context that's enough to qualify as coercion. Having someone constantly hound you for a decade wears down the sanity, after all.

Or he was just living next door to one of the worst Circles in Thedas for years and one day upped the ante on his own.

I won't deny that Justice had some influence there, that Anders may not have gone as far as he did without Justice living in his head. But you can't possibly pin the whole shift in mindset on the spirit. Or if Justice really was the main driver, it was still its proximity to the Gallows and all the injustice happening there that set it off. This wasn't "hey, let's go crazy today" - this was "this is never going to change the way things are going."

I'm sitting back and watching the debate now, I just want to clarify that there's a difference between moral authority or justification (which Meredith has about as much of as, I don't know, Bartrand or Rendon Howe) and authority as in the ability and resources to boss people around, which Meredith has in spades.

I think that was a point of miscommunication between me, Psyren, and possibly some other folks.

In a purely physical/military sense, yes, she has the ability to exert her will upon the city and law/due process be damned; much in the same way that someone with more muscles is physically capable of forcing themselves on someone who is not.

I don't happen to consider that "authority." I have a few other choice words for it that I won't repeat here; rather, my point is that having this capability does not make Meredith's judgments correct, nor beyond challenge/reproach. Kirkwall is not a theocracy. Even Orlais is not - Justinia has a great deal of power there, but she's still not the Empress.

Well, why did we kill Quentin, then? Hawke's mom and the other women won't be coming back. Why did we kill the Arishok? The Viscount isn't coming back. Why do we "kill [our] way through half of Kirkwall?" And the best part is, Quentin and Arishok probably would have stopped. Quentin had accomplished his goal, the Arishok would have eventually brought Kirkwall under control. They likely wouldn't have caused people any more suffering beyond what they already had. And we killed them anyway. Why? Compared to them, Anders is much more likely to keep causing tragedies. You saw how he turned on that mage we rescued from Alrick. Anders/Vengeance would have killed her if Hawke hadn't been there. He's losing control, slowly but surely. It's only a matter of time before he goes permanently berserk.

I killed Quentin, the Arishok, and just about everyone else because of what they were ABOUT to do. Not merely because of what they had done. I don't recall the Arishok sitting on the ground telling me to shank him, do you?

As for Anders "losing control" - I don't know what cutscene you were watching, but The Last Straw showed me someone in complete control of their faculties. Even when he went all glowy, he laid out his case very evenly, then sat down and accepted his fate.

Dienekes

2014-05-20, 11:53 PM

Pretty sure all or nearly all of those people attack you first unless you're being BastardHawke anyway, so this line of reasoning is moot. I have no problem with self-defense.

And as I said earlier, I don't recognize Meredith's "authority" in any way, shape or form.

Many not all, and you go looking for trouble quite a lot.

It doesn't matter if you recognize Meredith or not. She, and Elthina, are the proper authorities. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them any less the proper authorities. And honestly, I'm not even saying that you should follow them. I don't. But at least get your argument straight. If you can't perform an action because you aren't the proper authority, then follow the proper authority. If you're going to ignore and try to destroy the proper authority any way then the fact that you aren't the proper authority doesn't really matter. You can side with them, or (theoretically, not in the game, sadly) just walk away and let the proper authorities deal with the situation.

But you don't follow them. You disagree with them and continuously take action into your own hands. Anders committed a most heinous crime. The innocents he killed deserve to have justice brought to their murderer, and as a nobleman and "the Champion" (judging by medieval laws, of which I'm not sure how they correlate with Kirkwall specifically) the authority to give out his punishment is yours anyway.

Beowulf DW

2014-05-21, 12:00 AM

I killed Quentin, the Arishok, and just about everyone else because of what they were ABOUT to do. Not merely because of what they had done. I don't recall the Arishok sitting on the ground telling me to shank him, do you?

As for Anders "losing control" - I don't know what cutscene you were watching, but The Last Straw showed me someone in complete control of their faculties. Even when he went all glowy, he laid out his case very evenly, then sat down and accepted his fate.

What was Quentin "about" to do? He'd already accomplished what he'd wanted. That was the entirety of his ambition. He could have just stayed in his own little magic powered world in Darktown for the rest of his days. The Arishok had pretty much won. If Kirkwall had surrendered (which it likely would have without Hawke) the killing would have swiftly stopped.

And I don't know what game you were playing, because I distinctly remember Anders almost killing that mage, thinking that he could sense the templar's mark on her or some crap like that. The man's unstable at best, and the codex confirms as much.

Ajadea

2014-05-21, 12:07 AM

Did you complete her personal quest? I don't know for certain if that's a prerequisite to have her side with you, but it might be.
Yeah, I did.

I'm only just going through Awakening still and I wouldn't really classify it as his choice, in the grander context. You can audibly hear Justice saying "we should do something drastic and attack the templars", meanwhile Anders is saying "No, that's stupid, because then I'll die a painful death" if you have them both in your party. Anders himself is mostly ok with things as they are so long as he can escape and do apostate stuff.

It's kind of obvious that through the years Justice has been coercing him to act rashly and his control over his own actions is diminishing. Even within a modern legal context that's enough to qualify as coercion. Having someone constantly hound you for a decade wears down the sanity, after all.

Which is interesting, in and of itself, and adds a bit of complexity to fade creatures that they desperately need. I mean Justice is all well and good, but at the end of the day he can only really see the world through the lens of violence and specific goals, and looks down on mere mortals. Meanwhile say, a Desire Demon is usually much more stable, since a large number of them only want to deal with one or two hosts and what amounts to regular experience with some modification. I mean yeah, they deal with subtlety and long games, but Justice has done so much more damage at that there's no real comparison.

That is an interesting point. Anders, left to his own devices, is no revolutionary. He just wants to be left alone to live his life and quietly hate on templars. Justice literally cannot comprehend leaving the world as it is when there are people being wronged. The Fade has no history or concept of permanence, after all, and even the idea of causality beyond 'I want this and so it is done'. So it makes sense that what he advocates would look rash and very black and white. And then Nathaniel goes and gives him the wonderful idea of offering his powers and will to a living person in exchange for simply being allowed to inhabit their body and experience life, which Justice gamely takes under consideration. Nathaniel isn't a mage and can be forgiven for not noticing that what he's suggesting is basically the same thing every demon tries as a sales pitch.

Anders says from the beginning that Justice and his thoughts are at least partially merged, and the line between Justice's thoughts and Anders' thoughts is at best blurry. The person you meet in Dragon Age 2 is not Awakening!Anders, nor is he Justice - he's a composite being drawing on the personalities, morality, and memories of Anders, Justice, and by extension, at least a little bit of Kristoff. The part of Anders that is Justice wants change, and Awakening!Anders' wants to stay safe and not cause the wrath of the Chantry to rain down on his head. But Justice is always urging a little more, because Justice doesn't rest (though humans need to) and Anders either agrees, degrading the differences in their beliefs and principles until they're mentally indistinguishable (Friendship) or resists, causing Justice to reassert himself more as a separate entity as they both try to mentally get away from each other (Rivalry).

Either way, what you knife or spare isn't the snarky guy from Awakening. It's the abomination Vengeance, who has a rather lot of human presence in his mind, and thus a human or human-like depth and breadth of emotion. And Hawke definitely has the authority, as Champion, to axe an abomination threatening Kirkwall. Whether or not he/she wants to or thinks that is the right idea is a completely different story.

Giggling Ghast

2014-05-21, 12:19 AM

Aux-Ash

2014-05-21, 12:34 AM

Or he was just living next door to one of the worst Circles in Thedas for years and one day upped the ante on his own.

I won't deny that Justice had some influence there, that Anders may not have gone as far as he did without Justice living in his head. But you can't possibly pin the whole shift in mindset on the spirit. Or if Justice really was the main driver, it was still its proximity to the Gallows and all the injustice happening there that set it off. This wasn't "hey, let's go crazy today" - this was "this is never going to change the way things are going."

If you follow Anders throughout Awakening and DA2 you'll notice that Justice/Vengence is taking over more and more as DA2 progresses. Anders is carefree, hates comittments and is quite frankly something of a coward. The slightest pressure on him and he runs. It's the main reason he escaped the circle 7 times, because as he tells us he has not been mistreated on anything more than on an ideological level. It's also why he leaves the wardens... twice (he came back after the first time and picked up Justice), because he can't stand them expecting things from him.
We see it again after he has killed/almost killed Ella in act 2 of DA2, he's packing... intending to run away. Leaving his troubles and consequences behind like so many other times.

Justice goads him into action. Or ore accurately: takes control. If Hawke does nothing then Justice will kill Ella, for doing nothing worse than being scared by the furious Justice standing in front of her. Because to Justice there is only black and white and if you fear him then you must be guilty. But this is also distinctly visible on another level. In Act 1, Anders is still joking and playing along in banter and continues to do so in act 2. In act 3, there is no more jokes. He's dead serious whenever he interacts with the others. He's even given up on his clinic. Everything becomes more and more black and white.
Anders is doing what he always does... he runs away from his troubles by running away. This time only mentally instead of physically. Letting Justice have free reign. And indeed, even once the deed is done he seeks to run from his moral qualms about sacreficing the mages for his cause by asking Hawke to kill him.

While it's difficult to separate the two, it's in my mind definantely Justice that is the driving force behind his actions at the end. Anders is there yes and his opinions are important. But he has, ever since Ella, essentially jumped back into the backseat. He's a passenger now. Not a driver.

Also... it's interesting to note that Elthina had by the time Last Straw begins refused Meredith the Right of Annulment and from what I can gather Anders very much knows this. He knows that the only thing standing between Meredith and the death of every circle mage in Kirkwall is Elthina. So he kills her. Not because she's culpable in his eyes (or at least not for that as the primary reason). Not because he sees the mages in the tower as collaborators, quite the contrary he sees them as victims. He's doing it to provoke Meredith into killing them all. Laying up all innocent mages on the altar of sacrefice for his cause. And he does not even ask them first. He unceremoniously sacrefices them because -he- cannot stand the status quo.
Which is what's truly heinous about his action. All else I could understand (even if not accept), but that I consider truly and utterly unforgiveable.

Psyren

2014-05-21, 01:33 AM

Many not all, and you go looking for trouble quite a lot.

And yet you're attacked first nearly 100% of the time (provided you are actively trying to be nice), with the remainder being people that are about to attack someone else. So yeah, self-defense.

It doesn't matter if you recognize Meredith or not. She, and Elthina, are the proper authorities.

The Chantry does not rule Kirkwall or any other city in Thedas (however much they'd like to.)

And I'm not saying you "can't perform an action." You merely lose the moral high ground in doing so. You;'re acting out of revenge, not your capacity as an elected official of anything. You are a vigilante going along with the whims of an unstable woman.
At least when I choose to fight the Templars, I can admit that I'm acting on my own, and not attempting to rationalize myself to be some sort of appointed executioner acting on the city's behalf. I claim the responsibility.

What was Quentin "about" to do? He'd already accomplished what he'd wanted. That was the entirety of his ambition. He could have just stayed in his own little magic powered world in Darktown for the rest of his days. The Arishok had pretty much won. If Kirkwall had surrendered (which it likely would have without Hawke) the killing would have swiftly stopped.

Quentin attacked you. The Arishok attacked you. Self-defense.

And I don't know what game you were playing, because I distinctly remember Anders almost killing that mage, thinking that he could sense the templar's mark on her or some crap like that. The man's unstable at best, and the codex confirms as much.

Yeah yeah, he had a stressful and brief episode in a cave literally years before The Last Straw. Got anything fresh?

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-21, 01:33 AM

@Psyren:
You just seems to be very selectable about who deserves death, and for some reason you have chosen to draw the line in the sand by Anders. I do not buy your reasoning conserning the Arishok or the local Mass Murderer, because:

1. Killing people for "what they are about to do" is WORSE than killing them for what they have done. Seriously, there is a reason why pre-emtive executions aren't a thing.
2. Anders have already lost control, as pointed out above. How long before Vengence takes over again? Since Anders cannot control himself, he still falls within your moral system.

Connor was only saveable because either his mother let us use her as a human sacrifice in Blood Magic to drive out the demon or due to some magical luck (Bioware being unexpectedly kind to us) he suddenly stops killing people during the long trip to the Circle Tower. I fully expected him to go berserk while I was gone, so I saved first, and was almost a little disappointed that Bioware let us get away with dragging our feet for that long. If we remove the Circle option we are basically at an identical case as with Anders.

EDIT:

Quentin attacked you. The Arishok attacked you. Self-defense.

You realize your Hawke is coming off less as a good guy and more like a selfish bastard only caring about his own life and not others, right?

Psyren

2014-05-21, 01:37 AM

Killing people for "what they are about to do" is WORSE than killing them for what they have done. Seriously, there is a reason why pre-emtive executions aren't a thing.

But the "imminent harm" standard IS a thing. That is the key here.
When I stop someone from doing something with lethal force, it is because something really bad will happen right now if I don't. Not "oh gosh, some unspecified number of years down the road X and Y may or may not happen leading to Z."

Anders have already lost control, as pointed out above. How long before Vengence takes over again? Since Anders cannot control himself, he still falls within your moral system.

He seems to have achieved control quite well in the intervening years if you ask me.

You realize your Hawke is coming off less as a good guy and more like a selfish bastard only caring about his own life and not others, right?

Defending your own life makes you selfish? :smallconfused:

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-21, 01:40 AM

But the "imminent harm" standard IS a thing. That is the key here.
When I stop someone from doing something with lethal force, it is because something really bad will happen right now if I don't. Not "oh gosh, some unspecified number of years down the road X and Y may or may not happen leading to Z."

---

He seems to have achieved control quite well in the intervening years if you ask me.

---

Defending your own life makes you selfish? :smallconfused:

You are confusing modern western moral values with a game set in a Dark Quasi-medieval setting.

---

Does it matter if he only blows up a temple with innocents every three years? Besides, as pointed out above, he gets WORSE. Less and less control...

---

It is the way you write about it. It does come off less like "I don't think killing badguys are right, so I only kill those that attack me first" and more "Who cares what these people have done, they haven't tried to hurt ME yet".

Math_Mage

2014-05-21, 01:44 AM

Wrong - I don't want to judge him because I have no right to do that except (a) to protect my own life or (b) prevent imminent harm to someone else. The authority of a psycho like Meredith means nothing to me.

If you want to leave him, and then fight him later inside the tower when he attacks you, that is infinitely different than simply butchering him on the sidewalk.
I don't actually care about Meredith--that's the whole point of my previous post, which leaves me wondering why you brought her up. (Nor do I particularly care about Justice, for that matter. Make Anders pure human mage for all I care.) Like it or not, legal or not, Hawke is in the position of judgment, not only as a citizen of Kirkwall in possession of the facts, but in accordance with Anders' wishes. Hawke can refuse to give Anders death as an escape if he's so inclined, or he can refuse judgment (in itself a judgment), but he is also justified in administering frontier justice.

For that matter, the only morally incomprehensible option to me would be to agree with Anders' course of action, which you have done repeatedly.

Psyren

2014-05-21, 02:00 AM

You are confusing modern western moral values with a game set in a Dark Quasi-medieval setting.

But if you don't judge the game using modern morality, then that means you're okay with all the racism, classism, slavery, theocracy and host of other ills of medieval society that the game clearly intends for you to be questioning, at a minimum.

Does it matter if he only blows up a temple with innocents every three years? Besides, as pointed out above, he gets WORSE. Less and less control...

Worse how? Do you have anything besides the thing I happen to agree with?

It is the way you write about it. It does come off less like "I don't think killing badguys are right, so I only kill those that attack me first" and more "Who cares what these people have done, they haven't tried to hurt ME yet".

I care what they've done, which is why I would seek them out to bring them to justice. It is self-defense that tips the scale to lethal force. I would drag Quentin behind me in chains if I could, but he didn't give me the option; rather, he shows me frankenmom and then starts pooping out demons everywhere.

I don't actually care about Meredith--that's the whole point of my previous post, which leaves me wondering why you brought her up.

Because she's the one whose authority people are trying to hide behind when they say "I'm justified in murdering Anders in the street because Meredith said I could. She is clearly a legally-appointed voice of reason for the city of Kirkwall justice system."

For that matter, the only morally incomprehensible option to me would be to agree with Anders' course of action, which you have done repeatedly.

So you're in favor of continuing the lobotomies instead? Because that's just as incomprehensible to me.

Math_Mage

2014-05-21, 02:14 AM

Because she's the one whose authority people are trying to hide behind when they say "I'm justified in murdering Anders in the street because Meredith said I could. She is clearly a legally-appointed voice of reason for the city of Kirkwall legal system."
People, not me. If you got mixed up in who you were replying to, fine.

So you're in favor of continuing the lobotomies instead? Because that's just as incomprehensible to me.
Conveniently skipping over the part where you tie yourself in knots trying to justify equating "judging Anders for blowing up the Chantry" with "agreeing with the Tranquil policy." I don't blame you--it can't be done.

Psyren

2014-05-21, 02:18 AM

Apologies if I lumped you in with others. I'm replying to quite a few folks at the moment.

Conveniently skipping over the part where you tie yourself in knots trying to justify equating "judging Anders for blowing up the Chantry" with "agreeing with the Tranquil policy." I don't blame you--it can't be done.

If you have an alternative strategy I'm listening. Because throughout the game I saw his other attempts - appealing to Elthina directly, appealing to Meredith directly, appealing to bloody Justinia, writing manifestos (Hawke gripes about "another copy" ending up on his bookshelf) etc. None of it worked, and the Tranquil grew while the mage underground was wiped out.

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-21, 02:21 AM

But if you don't judge the game using modern morality, then that means you're okay with all the racism, classism, slavery, theocracy and host of other ills of medieval society that the game clearly intends for you to be questioning, at a minimum.
.

Let me rephrase:
To play a sword-and-sorcery fantasy RPG with the mindset towards killing as you have walking in the local Mall is... unpractical at best and strange at worst.

Worse how? Do you have anything besides the thing I happen to agree with?

Agree with what? It has been pointed out by others than me in this thread that Vengeance is slowly corrupting Anders, making him lose more and more of himself and making him do worse and worse things.

Math_Mage

2014-05-21, 02:22 AM

If you have an alternative strategy I'm listening. Because throughout the game I saw his other attempts - appealing to Elthina directly, appealing to Meredith directly, appealing to bloody Justinia, writing manifestos (Hawke gripes about "another copy" ending up on his bookshelf) etc. None of it worked, and the Tranquil grew while the mage underground was wiped out.
So, he asked a bunch of people and they said 'no', and the only possible next step was to blow up the Chantry? Is that seriously your claim?

Psyren

2014-05-21, 02:34 AM

So, he asked a bunch of people and they said 'no', and the only possible next step was to blow up the Chantry? Is that seriously your claim?

He asked Chantry leadership and they did nothing, yes. Tried to rally the nobles instead and nothing came of it. Tried to organize the mages in secret and they got cut off at the knees. Still waiting on your alternative.

Let me rephrase:
To play a sword-and-sorcery fantasy RPG with the mindset towards killing as you have walking in the local Mall is... unpractical at best and strange at worst.

What are you getting at here? That a modern game with a medieval setting should be played with a medieval mindset? That I should sit down to partake of this story by starting from standpoints like "slavery, quasi-feudalism and divine right of rule are good?" :smallconfused:

Agree with what? It has been pointed out by others than me in this thread that Vengeance is slowly corrupting Anders, making him lose more and more of himself and making him do worse and worse things.

Simply repeating an assertion does not make it true. He has one episode with Ella in Act 2 (that you can talk him out of), then he is the picture of lucidity after that. This is a very far cry from your claims of "losing more and more of himself."

Hell, between Dissent and the Last Straw, the only time you ever even see Justice again is if you take Anders into the Fade to help Feynriel, unless I'm missing a sidequest somewhere.

Lord Raziere

2014-05-21, 02:37 AM

You know, I kind of want to actually see the Imperium at this point. I mean it seems super messed up, but so do Orlais and the Free Marches and Orzimmar when you get down to it. But that many blood mages being given free reign must look really cool if nothing else.

Yeah. its like, the one place where its all reversed: mages on top, normals on the bottom, like sure everywhere else probably has unique things about them, but the Tevinter Imperium is arguably the most important nation in the history of Thedas. its the nation that caused the Blights, the modern state of the Chantry, wrecked the first elven nation, dominated everywhere else except Ferelden, which caused said Fereldens to fight back in a united front no less than three times, is the only nation that didn't sign the treaty with the Qunari and is thus still at war with them to this day- and despite all the trouble it has caused, despite the innumerable things it has screwed up, and despite the fact people still hate and fear Mages and consider blood magic evil and is fighting a war with one of the most competent war-focused people in the world..... The Tevinter Imperium is still standing, still has its magi upper class which still uses blood magic, with even the most devout Mage knowing at least the basics of said blood magic.

that is right, 800+ years of basically determining the entire history of Thedas, surrounded by nations that strictly follow the Chantry on the Mage thing, and they are still basically the same aristocratic jerks they always were, still using blood magic like they always have, still even practicing slavery. for a nation that is so important to the setting, has so much history, and is apparently still strong enough to keep itself afloat despite everything it has gone through, we quite surprisingly haven't seen it yet nor have we gotten into much detail upon it. when the very fact that Tevinter somehow still stands with its culture intact, when by all rights the Imperium should be in shambles or following the Chantry like everyone else, is either badass in its own way, or demonstrates that Tevinter is the karma houdini of Thedas.

like, Tevinter is literally the nation that has screwed EVERYTHING and EVERYONE over at one point or another-even the dwarves, which they are on good relations with by the way because of lyrium trade, they screwed over by causing the Blight and thus ruining most of dwarven civilization underground. I'm kind of curious about it, just to see what the nation that has basically been the cause of like most of everyone's problems is like.....

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-21, 02:55 AM

What are you getting at here? That a modern game with a medieval setting should be played with a medieval mindset? That I should sit down to partake of this story by starting from standpoints like "slavery, quasi-feudalism and divine right of rule are good?" :smallconfused:

---

Simply repeating an assertion does not make it true. He has one episode with Ella in Act 2 (that you can talk him out of), then he is the picture of lucidity after that. This is a very far cry from your claims of "losing more and more of himself."

Hell, between Dissent and the Last Straw, the only time you ever even see Justice again is if you take Anders into the Fade to help Feynriel, unless I'm missing a sidequest somewhere.

What?
All I am saying is that...

Oh hell, you know what, I can't tell you have to play the game. You have drawn the line in the sand RIGHT THERE and refuse to cross it. It just seems extremely arbitary to me. Most of us have drawn the line somewhere else.
In my case the line is drawn at cooperating with Blood Mages, Terrorism and protecting the innocent. My Hawke has no problem killing those who deserve it. Including Anders and Merrill (though she cannot kill Merrill, but that is a gameplay thing, not a Moral thing). Also, my line shifts depending on what character I play. My Stealth Rogue Orc in Skyrim kills people but refuses to work for the assassins, proudly stating she is a murderer but not an assassin, she only kills people that has offended her, not for cash and considers herself morally superior to the dark brotherhood because of it.
My other stealth character, the Stealth Mage / Archer Breton woman refuses to work work with ANY shady organization... In DA:O I played a "Paladin" Human Noble Female, a more shady yet genuinely good human rogue, and a rather shady elven female mage.

Jayngfet

2014-05-21, 03:00 AM

Let me rephrase:
To play a sword-and-sorcery fantasy RPG with the mindset towards killing as you have walking in the local Mall is... unpractical at best and strange at worst.

Right, but that's kind of just Bioware's usual game design being total crap and then amped up to eleven.

I mean for gods sake, I'm supposed to believe that not only are abominations terrifying and Quinari intimidating, but that Hawke can down dozens of them in minutes if pressed. Which is extreme, but it's a serious case for the gameplay and story segregation that goes on. I'd be a bit more hesitant to kill him if the game didn't make me kill literally about three or four hundred people before that point casually, because designing unique and innovative encounters is hard and we need something to eat up 10 hours of time with four dungeons. Or that the Chantry has a reasonable degree of control over Kirkwalls mages, when at the same time there are like five dozen apostates who don't care either way in the collective and just need random fetch quests done.

Or really, that Hawke is a wealthy and influential individual, but he can't seem to just pay a handful of mercenaries to handle dungeon crawling for him. He must just really love certain building layouts I guess.\

What?
All I am saying is that...

Oh hell, you know what, I can't tell you have to play the game. You have drawn the line in the sand RIGHT THERE and refuse to cross it. It just seems extremely arbitary to me. Most of us have drawn the line somewhere else.
In my case the line is drawn at cooperating with Blood Mages, Terrorism and protecting the innocent. My Hawke has no problem killing those who deserve it. Including Anders and Merrill (though she cannot kill Merrill, but that is a gameplay thing, not a Moral thing).

To be fair, Bioware doesn't really leave room for interpretation in Ferelden anyway. Hence why it's a renaissance era civilization with no slave trade, gender equality, and a large degree of social mobility outside Orzimmar.

Unless of course you're a bad guy(or Morrigan, same difference). Then Men can become chauvanistic dogs(Either so Morrigan can have someone to act superior to, or so that Howe can drive home how bad he is even after killing a bunch of guys), and you own a bunch of people in one way or another(the Baroness is an extreme example, but the goodly Couslands never seem to have actual workers beyond domestic staff, or to actually do anything besides die nobly to give someone motivation), and the Quinari and Dwarves get to be bad guys for not having social mobility(Except for "the good ones", who are all forward thinking and young and pretty).

It's the same way with basically every issue in Origins. I mean look at Orlais vs Ferelden The goodly king wants peace with Orlais, while a Snape clone wants to keep them out, and the latter is your scheming villain despite his reservations ultimately being totally justified(the DLC even gives Cailan a fancy Jesus pose, just to hammer home how right he is and what a Martyr he is for not liking a character that sells you out the moment you meet her). Just in case you aren't totally convinced that grudges=bad, Howe will suddenly claim the goodly Couslands had been taking a bunch of trips to Orlais despite the family leaders fighting them directly and logically being known for it(and insulting them when they actually speak, in a scene written by someone else entirely).

Math_Mage

2014-05-21, 03:11 AM

He asked Chantry leadership and they did nothing, yes. Tried to rally the nobles instead and nothing came of it. Tried to organize the mages in secret and they got cut off at the knees. Still waiting on your alternative.
For starters, don't wait until the entire Underground is obliterated over the course of three years to do something. How about, say, going after Meredith at some point during this entire time? Or in any way taking action against the people who are actually responsible? Anders' bomb is as badly targeted as Meredith's annulment, is my point.

Jayngfet

2014-05-21, 03:28 AM

For starters, don't wait until the entire Underground is obliterated over the course of three years to do something. How about, say, going after Meredith at some point during this entire time? Or in any way taking action against the people who are actually responsible? Anders' bomb is as badly targeted as Meredith's annulment, is my point.

That's basically Justice doing the thinking. Not even Vengance, but Justice. In Awakening, Justice straight up states that his goal isn't to get rid of a single dangerous figure or change things slightly, it's to confront and attack anyone holding back mages and hit them so hard they can't get back up and do it again. Merideth is still totally sane at this point and Justice has no idea who she is, and has never actually met a Templar when he makes the plan.

Once you fuse that with the basket case that is Anders it becomes clear that Merideth was just a convenient excuse. Even a peaceful moderate would have gotten attacked eventually, because he'd still be "oppressing" mages in the circle and Justrice can't abide by that. The fact that Justice can't comprehend Templar duties, and even admits to having no understanding of demons beyond "stab here", is totally irrelevant.

Ajadea

2014-05-21, 03:36 AM

Perhaps your approval needs to be a little higher. Also, did you burn Amaranthine or leave the Vigil?

A thing I found fascinating about Justuce is the fate of the prisoners that you can release from beneath Vigil's Keep. Everyone approves or is at least neutral to releasing them except Justice. It doesn't matter that you don't know these men's crimes or that they're being menaced by ghouls. They're prisoners and therefore guilty of a crime, so they deserve to stay in their cells. He cannot conceive of extenuating circumstances.

Ah... I burned Amaranthine with Sigrun in the party, that might be it. Potentially letting even more super-infected ghouls get out (25% were ghoulified on the first day, it's been 2 and there's a small army in there so at this point it's reasonable to assume 50-66%+ of Amaranthine is darkspawn, ghouls, and ghouls-to-be), and letting my keep and army be torn up by another darkspawn army (again!), in exchange for saving I'd estimate no more than 3k civilians and prolly less (Assuming a population of about 20k, 8-9k are tainted in some way, and the rest are split three ways between dead, evacuated, and alive). It's not reasonable.

That's interesting on the prisoners.

Something to think about: Anders killing Elthina doesn't, AFAIK, give Meredith an auto-Right of Annulment, it just stops Elthina from getting in the way of Meredith really wanting to annul the Gallows. Actually, it's a little absurd how it plays out: apostate blows up Chantry > apostate turns himself in > Meredith turns around and declares RoA on Gallows completely ignoring the apostate. Having a reason doesn't justify his actions, it's not necessarily the best plan to begin with, and if Meredith hadn't been guano-insane, it wouldn't have worked. But it clearly underlines the point he probably wanted to make in a way I can't imagine any other method doing: the templars can do anything to the mages, and they have no way to stop them except open rebellion.

Math_Mage

2014-05-21, 03:50 AM

Something to think about: Anders killing Elthina doesn't, AFAIK, give Meredith an auto-Right of Annulment, it just stops Elthina from getting in the way of Meredith really wanting to annul the Gallows. Actually, it's a little absurd how it plays out: apostate blows up Chantry > apostate turns himself in > Meredith turns around and declares RoA on Gallows completely ignoring the apostate. Having a reason doesn't justify his actions, it's not necessarily the best plan to begin with, and if Meredith hadn't been guano-insane, it wouldn't have worked. But it clearly underlines the point he probably wanted to make in a way I can't imagine any other method doing: the templars can do anything to the mages, and they have no way to stop them except open rebellion.
Two issues:
-Pretty sure Meredith could have been provoked to invoke the preemptively requested RoA in other ways. An attack on her life, for example.
-If the outcome relies on unforeseeable factors (e.g. Meredith being bats*** insane), it can't be credited to Anders.

Ajadea

2014-05-21, 04:12 AM

Meredith being crazy, beyond-trigger happy, and really wanting to annul the Gallows wasn't exactly unforeseen after Anders had spent the last 6-7 years in Kirkwall. Sure, on the grand scheme of things there's no way to predict Meredith would grab a red lyrium idol from an ancient thaig and spend the next few years carrying it around, but Anders definitely had the ability to predict what Meredith would do if Elthina were out of the picture. You work with what you've got.

Blowing up Meredith directly doesn't achieve the goal. As long as Elthina's alive, she can make the Right of Annulment legitimate, and no one would blink an eye. The Right of Annulment has been invoked 17 times in 650 years (not counting Uldred, since that didn't go through). On average, every 40 years someone slaughters a whole tower of mages. You think anyone will care that this time it was the Gallows? The entire point is that it's an illegal Annulment, without the authorization of the Grand Cleric. That's what sets it apart from the others. That's what can make it a catalyst for rebellion.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-21, 04:52 AM

The entire point is that it's an illegal Annulment, without the authorization of the Grand Cleric. That's what sets it apart from the others. That's what can make it a catalyst for rebellion.
It was legal. (http://forum.bioware.com/topic/203112-was-anders-justified-no-pun-intended/page-12#entry5491296)

When you find someone who's sunk to Meredith's level (and you'll probably need a bathysphere for this,) please let me know.
For most people Anders managed to sunk below her level - the war he personally started will kill more mages (not to mention innocent people) than she could dream to lobotomize.

I overlooked him - as I didn't buy his DLC, in my games he actually wasn't, no. Nor do I really care what he thinks, I have no particular amity for the character and find his "romance" extremely weird to boot.
If we go with "I don't really care about this character's opinion", I'll say that I don't care what Anders thinks, I find him extremely weird and loathable. So any arguments based on his words/choices become null and void, no? ;P

And as I said earlier, I don't recognize Meredith's "authority" in any way, shape or form.
Sucks that she had one. Also, what "authority" did Anders have to decide Ethinna should die (and take both the Chantry and the Circle with her)?

Yeah yeah, he had a stressful and brief episode in a cave literally years before The Last Straw. Got anything fresh?
He had at least one other episode and he personally admits the spirit has at least some degree of control/influence. Not to mention open war tends to lead to stressful situations...

Beowulf DW

2014-05-21, 07:59 AM

Quentin attacked you. The Arishok attacked you. Self-defense.

Yeah yeah, he had a stressful and brief episode in a cave literally years before The Last Straw. Got anything fresh?

1) Only because you decided to meddle in their affairs. You could have left it alone if you're really that hung up on killing people.

2) At first you say it didn't happen, now that you acknowledge it you claim its irrelevant? This isn't like you, Psyren. Didn't you read the Codex entry for Anders? The Codex updates after every time skip to let us know what everyone was doing in the intervals. And Ander's codex entry after the Qunari uprising specifically says that he's fighting a battle with Vengeance-a battle he is losing. The man is losing control. This is an established fact in the game, and putting your hands over your ears and shutting your eyes isn't going to make that go away.

Dienekes

2014-05-21, 08:59 AM

He asked Chantry leadership and they did nothing, yes. Tried to rally the nobles instead and nothing came of it. Tried to organize the mages in secret and they got cut off at the knees. Still waiting on your alternative.

Assassinate Meredith, blow up the Templar barracks, attempt to learn how to undue Tranquility, start a large group of mages to passively resist Templar demands in a peaceful manner, organize an actual army.

The point is, if you're goal is to save the mages, provoking the mass murder of all of them your trying to save to create a scandal is just about the dumbest plan I've ever heard. It only works if the goal is the war itself, and the way he goes about it does not put the mages in a position to win. If they lose, it is just as likely that it will result in even harsher restrictions put on mages as otherwise.

As it stands, Anders created a war where the mages do not have a command structure, do not have supplies, are several bodies completely out of communication with each other. In fact, let's talk about communication. The Chantry and the Templar control the information that the mages receive in each Circle. Meaning that news of the chaos of Kirkwall will reach them before it reaches the mages, giving the Templar additional time to prepare and be ready for an attack. Anders' war he created gives all the cards to the Templar, and to top it off tied the Mage movement to actions against the dominant religion of the land.

Also, why would there even be an attack? To the outside world, it'll look like the mages rebelled and committed a treasonous act and the Right of Annulment was called upon. This is hardly a unique event, the Right of Annulment has been issued before and no rebellion popped up. Why was Anders so sure this one would be special?

So there, maybe my ideas won't work, it's possible. But Anders plan shouldn't work. I mean, it will, somehow, because Bioware doesn't understand war, but it is an unbelievably stupid plan.

Psyren

2014-05-21, 10:19 AM

Oh hell, you know what, I can't tell you have to play the game. You have drawn the line in the sand RIGHT THERE and refuse to cross it. It just seems extremely arbitary to me. Most of us have drawn the line somewhere else.

I acknowledge I'm likely in the minority when it comes to Anders (at least among the folks who discuss the game this much at all), but that doesn't particularly sway me. This isn't a popularity contest.

"If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too..."

For starters, don't wait until the entire Underground is obliterated over the course of three years to do something. How about, say, going after Meredith at some point during this entire time? Or in any way taking action against the people who are actually responsible? Anders' bomb is as badly targeted as Meredith's annulment, is my point.

I would prefer that he had attacked Meredith too, but realistically this isn't viable. On his own, he'd have just thrown his life away, and who would be left to stop the lobotomies then? Certainly not Orsino, whose strategy thus far has been to run to Elthina's skirts, get a pat on the head and be sent to bed with a sweet.

No, he needed all of them to rise up if they wanted to stand a chance, and all the other circles too. Attacking Meredith and getting smacked down like a gnat (never mind her red lyrium ninja blade, if she even needed it) would not have been that catalyst. Even Cullen was on her side almost to the very end, countermanding Thrask's attempts to have her removed.

1) Only because you decided to meddle in their affairs. You could have left it alone if you're really that hung up on killing people.

Which would mean killing people by inaction when the Qunari put the rest of the non-Qun-followers to the sword. Not to mention Hawke didn't know the Viscount was dead when he began hunting down the Arishok, so he was doing his civic duty there. By contrast, you already know Elthina is dead in Act 3.

2) At first you say it didn't happen, now that you acknowledge it you claim its irrelevant? This isn't like you, Psyren. Didn't you read the Codex entry for Anders? The Codex updates after every time skip to let us know what everyone was doing in the intervals. And Ander's codex entry after the Qunari uprising specifically says that he's fighting a battle with Vengeance-a battle he is losing. The man is losing control. This is an established fact in the game, and putting your hands over your ears and shutting your eyes isn't going to make that go away.

What Anders is losing is a reason to fight Justice. While I do agree his measures were drastic, I still see no viable alternative.

It was legal. (http://forum.bioware.com/topic/203112-was-anders-justified-no-pun-intended/page-12#entry5491296)

But unjustified - from your own link.

For most people Anders managed to sunk below her level - the war he personally started will kill more mages (not to mention innocent people) than she could dream to lobotomize.

But they will die fighting and possibly win freedom, instead of being rounded up like horses in a glue factory. Revolutions often involve people dying.

If we go with "I don't really care about this character's opinion", I'll say that I don't care what Anders thinks, I find him extremely weird and loathable. So any arguments based on his words/choices become null and void, no? ;P

Anders is a DLC character? :smalltongue:

Sucks that she had one. Also, what "authority" did Anders have to decide Ethinna should die (and take both the Chantry and the Circle with her)?

None. nor is he claiming to have any. That was the whole point of sitting down and accepting his death.

He had at least one other episode and he personally admits the spirit has at least some degree of control/influence. Not to mention open war tends to lead to stressful situations...

Post-Ella and pre-Last Straw? When was that? What were the circumstances?

And I should hope Justice would get pissed off during the fighting, more chance of victory that way.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-21, 10:56 AM

No, he needed all of them to rise up if they wanted to stand a chance, and all the other circles too.
A pity the other circles weren't prepared in any way, shape or form - which would make them easy enough to deal with.

But unjustified - from your own link.
That isn't relevant to the post I've answered (nor did I ever claim it was justified).

But they will die fighting and possibly win freedom, instead of being rounded up like horses in a glue factory. Revolutions often involve people dying.
Without some outside intervention the chances of actually winning are rather slim - even moreso since the mages generally don't have much in the ways of contacts beyonds their Circles (and even they need to get supplies from somewhere), with many literally knowing next to nothing about the way things work. Also I'm sure mages from the more normal Circles will appreciate enduring additional hardships/death just so a few can be killed instead of being made tranquil in Kirkwall...

Anders is a DLC character? :smalltongue:
I wish he was - then I could turn him off.

Post-Ella and pre-Last Straw? When was that? What were the circumstances?
No - the one when we first meet. Which doesn't change the fact he himself admits losing control, with all that entails.

And I should hope Justice would get pissed off during the fighting, more chance of victory that way.
Unless he'd turn on the mages for whatever reason - just like with Ella.

Certainly not Orsino, whose strategy thus far has been to run to Elthina's skirts, get a pat on the head and be sent to bed with a sweet.
And what would be your strategy were you in his place?

Ajadea

2014-05-21, 11:42 AM

It was legal. (http://forum.bioware.com/topic/203112-was-anders-justified-no-pun-intended/page-12#entry5491296)

...Huh. I didn't know that.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-21, 12:01 PM

...Huh. I didn't know that.
I also didn't - I found the info browsing the DA wiki.

Math_Mage

2014-05-21, 12:21 PM

I would prefer that he had attacked Meredith too, but realistically this isn't viable. On his own, he'd have just thrown his life away, and who would be left to stop the lobotomies then? Certainly not Orsino, whose strategy thus far has been to run to Elthina's skirts, get a pat on the head and be sent to bed with a sweet.

No, he needed all of them to rise up if they wanted to stand a chance, and all the other circles too. Attacking Meredith and getting smacked down like a gnat (never mind her red lyrium ninja blade, if she even needed it) would not have been that catalyst. Even Cullen was on her side almost to the very end, countermanding Thrask's attempts to have her removed.
Ugh, where to begin?
-"realistically this isn't viable"--There are, y'know, ways to get around a difference in strength. Like, I don't know, a bomb? Poison? Hired assassins?
-"he needed all of them"--And he didn't make any effort to leverage his network, or do anything until it was entirely stamped out.
-"if they wanted to stand a chance"--To do what? Win a war? Again, this only works if (a) your goal is to start a war, and (b) you think blowing up the Chantry is the best way to mobilize the mages in preparation for war. Key word, that: preparation. The mages are totally unprepared for Anders' war, and blowing up the Chantry is the single best way to turn the populace against them, doesn't prepare them for war, and in fact doesn't even inform them that there's a war on. (Not to mention being an unjustifiable mass slaughter of innocents. Just want to keep that fact in the conversation.) Meanwhile, again, Anders has hardly exhausted the non-war options for his actual goals, which are mage freedom and an end to Tranquility.

Psyren

2014-05-21, 12:57 PM

A pity the other circles weren't prepared in any way, shape or form - which would make them easy enough to deal with.

For starters, they actually were - Leliana tells you both the Chantry and the Circles are watching events in Kirkwall keenly, and the Mage Underground connects several if not all of them (at a minimum, it involved the Circles in Kirkwall, Starkhaven and Ferelden, with only the former branch being stamped out by Meredith, and Tevinter/Orlais were undoubtedly aware as well.) So I don't subscribe to this notion that they were all caught with their robes around their ankles; they knew what was coming.

Furthermore, we know they must have been prepared on some level (or that they didn't need to be) - even if Hawke sides with the templars and eradicates the Kirkwall Circle entirely, the rebellion still kicks into high gear elsewhere. Whatever warning they had was clearly enough.

That isn't relevant to the post I've answered (nor did I ever claim it was justified).

I know that response wasn't directed at me, I just wanted to chime in on that quote.

Without some outside intervention the chances of actually winning are rather slim - even moreso since the mages generally don't have much in the ways of contacts beyonds their Circles (and even they need to get supplies from somewhere), with many literally knowing next to nothing about the way things work. Also I'm sure mages from the more normal Circles will appreciate enduring additional hardships/death just so a few can be killed instead of being made tranquil in Kirkwall...

Kirkwall may have been an extreme example but it was also proof that a similar regime could happen to any of them at any time. Just because your jailer is relatively kind to you, does not make unjust imprisonment magically become just. Better to fight off the yoke now, while everyone else is fighting, instead of sit waiting for the next Meredith to assume power.

Not to mention - what might have happened if she was reassigned? She'd just go to another Circle and start the same crap again.

No - the one when we first meet. Which doesn't change the fact he himself admits losing control, with all that entails.

So, nothing since Ella then? That's what I asked for.

Unless he'd turn on the mages for whatever reason - just like with Ella.

You can't plot a trend line with one point no matter how hard you try. Nor do I consider 3-year old behavior to be a perfect indicator of future attitude, especially with how rapidly circumstances in Kirkwall were changing.

Ugh, where to begin?
-"realistically this isn't viable"--There are, y'know, ways to get around a difference in strength. Like, I don't know, a bomb? Poison? Hired assassins?
-"he needed all of them"--And he didn't make any effort to leverage his network, or do anything until it was entirely stamped out.
-"if they wanted to stand a chance"--To do what? Win a war? Again, this only works if (a) your goal is to start a war, and (b) you think blowing up the Chantry is the best way to mobilize the mages in preparation for war. Key word, that: preparation. The mages are totally unprepared for Anders' war, and blowing up the Chantry is the single best way to turn the populace against them, doesn't prepare them for war, and in fact doesn't even inform them that there's a war on. (Not to mention being an unjustifiable mass slaughter of innocents. Just want to keep that fact in the conversation.) Meanwhile, again, Anders has hardly exhausted the non-war options for his actual goals, which are mage freedom and an end to Tranquility.

1) Hire assassins with what? Poison her how? Hopes and dreams? And surely you can see the difference between planting a bomb in heavily-guarded Templar HQ and in a wide open Chantry, can't you?
2) It was the loss of his network (among other things) that pushed him to desperation in the first place. Of course he wasn't desperate enough to use it for conflict at the time. He tells you this himself near the beginning of Act 3.
3) Yes, to win a war. And yes, he meant to start one. So did Andraste.

I see a lot of harping on the preparation issue, or should I say non-issue. The mages were not drooling simpletons - they had eyes and ears in Kirkwall just like the Chantry did, and Leliana confirms it. What evidence do you have that they were unprepared? Especially since the rebellion is, near as we can tell, successful?

From Varric's epilogue: "How is hearing all this going to help? Haven't you already lost all the Circles? In fact, haven't the Templars rebelled as well?" Sounds like a double-win to me.

Dienekes

2014-05-21, 01:05 PM

Psyren

2014-05-21, 01:18 PM

That's the key difference there Psyren. People are giving quite a few reasons why Anders plan shouldn't work, and in fact would be detrimental to the mages. Instead of really disproving these points, you just point out that in the end it does work like Anders wanted. But that isn't an explanation. It's just bad writing.

Okay then, let's put aside the fact that it works. Do you have any truly compelling reason why it wouldn't? Again, what evidence do you have that the mages were blindsided?

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-21, 01:23 PM

Psyren

2014-05-21, 01:39 PM

The problem is that the rebellion we know about didn't really start at once (see DA: Asunder) - for the next three years (and that is quite some time to prepare yourself if you see things are going badly) the Templars treated mages even harsher than before and then a chain of events led to the true start of the open war. Not the least of those reasons was the fact the Divine wanted to help the mages... Also having most of the Templars continue to be united but not restricted by anything other than their own views isn't something I'd call a win. The Kirkwall Circle would likely cease to exist years before the incident if the Templar there didn't have anyone above their heads.

But this undermines your point even more. If Anders' nuke took three whole years to really get things going and the mages had all that time to organize and prepare and "see if things are going badly." how can you then turn around and claim they were blindsided? And the Templars, as I established in Varric's quote, are not united. They weren't even in Kirkwall, between Thrask and Cullen and Carver and other dissidents. And there will be more.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-21, 01:52 PM

But this undermines your point even more. If Anders' nuke took three whole years to really get things going and the mages had all that time to organize and prepare and "see if things are going badly." how can you then turn around and claim they were blindsided?
They would be blindsided if things went as he wanted them and the war started immediately. There was a - relative and tense - peace for those years. Something he claimed there is no place for.

And the Templars, as I established in Varric's quote, are not united
How does that quote prove it? It only mentions templars rebelling...

Math_Mage

2014-05-21, 01:59 PM

1) Hire assassins with what? Poison her how? Hopes and dreams? And surely you can see the difference between planting a bomb in heavily-guarded Templar HQ and in a wide open Chantry, can't you?
2) It was the loss of his network (among other things) that pushed him to desperation in the first place. Of course he wasn't desperate enough to use it for conflict at the time. He tells you this himself near the beginning of Act 3.
3) Yes, to win a war. And yes, he meant to start one. So did Andraste.

I see a lot of harping on the preparation issue, or should I say non-issue. The mages were not drooling simpletons - they had eyes and ears in Kirkwall just like the Chantry did, and Leliana confirms it. What evidence do you have that they were unprepared? Especially since the rebellion is, near as we can tell, successful?

From Varric's epilogue: "How is hearing all this going to help? Haven't you already lost all the Circles? In fact, haven't the Templars rebelled as well?" Sounds like a double-win to me.
1) Anders is a mage with access to the Champion of Kirkwall. Come up with something. Also, Meredith isn't imprisoned in Templar HQ. Draw her out. Also also, you don't even need to succeed in killing Meredith to have the effect Anders apparently wanted. Just make it obvious that a mage is responsible. Also also also, and this shouldn't need to be said again, but don't blow up a Chantry full of innocent people just because reaching the culprits is harder than you'd like.
2) The man who rearranges deck chairs on a sinking ship should not be taking responsibility for righting it.
3) Yes, I know what he meant to do--I also know that in pursuing that he's lost sight of the actual goals, such that he ends up trying to accomplish his intended aim in a colossally stupid--and evil--way that doesn't bring about his actual goals.
4) The evidence is what actually happened in canon--Anders' actions led to confusion among the mages, with isolated revolts that were put down, leading to harsher treatment and no war until the events at White Spire. Which, by the way, featured some of this stuff we're talking about: research on reversing the Rite of Tranquility, a false flag operation with at least ambiguous moral consequences to galvanize Wynne, consultation among the Circles, and--wait, I'm forgetting something--oh, right, not blowing up a Chantry full of innocent people. Have I mentioned that? I think I should mention that. In other words, Anders' actions had the entirely predictable outcome of catching the mages with their pants down and making the situation worse for years until another forcing move, somewhat less evil and far more effective, led to the actual war.

Psyren

2014-05-21, 02:59 PM

They would be blindsided if things went as he wanted them and the war started immediately. There was a - relative and tense - peace for those years. Something he claimed there is no place for.

Your claim, that things would have gone badly for the mages without that ramp-up time, is still baseless. And the fact still remains that had he not done what he did, there would have been no ramp-up at all - just status quo and lobotomies.

I don't see how it could have happened instantly anyway. During those three years we see the vote by the College of Enchanters get defeated, the White Spire incident, the the exodus of most mages to Andoral, and the final vote where the Loyalists were defeated again by thhe Libertarians and Aequitarians. What exactly do you believe Anders could have possibly done to speed any of that up? Wat could have forced them to charge ahead without preparation?

How does that quote prove it? It only mentions templars rebelling...

The only possible organization they could be rebelling against is the one they answer to, i.e. the Chantry. Therefore they can't possibly be united.

1) Anders is a mage with access to the Champion of Kirkwall. Come up with something. Also, Meredith isn't imprisoned in Templar HQ. Draw her out. Also also, you don't even need to succeed in killing Meredith to have the effect Anders apparently wanted. Just make it obvious that a mage is responsible. Also also also, and this shouldn't need to be said again, but don't blow up a Chantry full of innocent people just because reaching the culprits is harder than you'd like.
2) The man who rearranges deck chairs on a sinking ship should not be taking responsibility for righting it.
3) Yes, I know what he meant to do--I also know that in pursuing that he's lost sight of the actual goals, such that he ends up trying to accomplish his intended aim in a colossally stupid--and evil--way that doesn't bring about his actual goals.
4) The evidence is what actually happened in canon--Anders' actions led to confusion among the mages, with isolated revolts that were put down, leading to harsher treatment and no war until the events at White Spire. Which, by the way, featured some of this stuff we're talking about: research on reversing the Rite of Tranquility, a false flag operation with at least ambiguous moral consequences to galvanize Wynne, consultation among the Circles, and--wait, I'm forgetting something--oh, right, not blowing up a Chantry full of innocent people. Have I mentioned that? I think I should mention that. In other words, Anders' actions had the entirely predictable outcome of catching the mages with their pants down and making the situation worse for years until another forcing move, somewhat less evil and far more effective, led to the actual war.

1) Aren't you assuming as a starting point a Hawke that is willing to shank Anders? Something tells me his/her resources would not be available to do anything beyond what Anders already attempted, i.e. appealing to the Chantry leaders. Meredith was the most paranoid person in Kirkwall - draw her where? None of your plans are well-thought-out at all. 'Also also,' you don't know how many people besides Elthina were in the Chantry at night, so loaded terms like "building full of innocent people" are unsupported. It went off in the dead of night, not at high noon during the Chant.

2) "Deck chairs?" What?

3) It sure seems like it accomplished his goals to me. And I see no reason why it wouldn't have either. And even if for some reason it hadn't - if it had resulted in the slaughter of every single mage in Thedas and no small number of Templars along with them - there would be no possible chance of attempting the failed Circle system again. It would be political suicide for any noble or divine to even contemplate.
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." -Patrick Henry
"Fire is catching! And if we burn, you burn with us!" -Katniss Everdeen, Mockingjay.

4) I saw no "smaller rebellions being put down." The timeline post-Straw is - increased security measures on the Circles, mounting tensions, College of Enchanters vote to end hostilities (failed), assassination attempt on Justinia V, murder of Pharamond and White Spire revolt, mass mage exodus to Andoral's reach, final vote to end war by Loyalists (failed), all-out war. All I see in that is a pot coming to boil; fighting, yes, but the mages are giving as good as they get.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-21, 03:15 PM

Your claim, that things would have gone badly for the mages without that ramp-up time, is still baseless.
As baseless as saying that things would go well - though more logical, since after Kirkwall the Templars were in a better position to fight if it came to that (better organized as a group, had immediate access to supplies and resources, generally more prepared to kill their Circles than the mages were to overthrow them).

I don't see how it could have happened instantly anyway. During those three years we see the vote by the College of Enchanters get defeated, the White Spire incident, the the exodus of most mages to Andoral, and the final vote where the Loyalists were defeated again by thhe Libertarians and Aequitarians. What exactly do you believe Anders could have possibly done to speed any of that up? Wat could have forced them to charge ahead without preparation?
With mages going "we can't have any of this" and Circles rebelling one after another? That's what I feel he hoped for, not for something happening years after he does his thing.

The only possible organization they could be rebelling against is the one they answer to, i.e. the Chantry. Therefore they can't possibly be united.
The Templars as an order had left the Chantry entirely - however they are still united as an order (unless DAI changes things). Saying they can't be united is like saying the crew of a factory cannot possibly be united in rebelling against the owner.

ScrambledBrains

2014-05-21, 03:39 PM

You know, with all this discussion going on about the morality of Anders's decision, if he was backed into a corner or not, was he doing the right and/or smart thing with the bomb, etc., I find it almost refreshing that my issue with the blond douche is much simpler...

He's forced upon you. :smallmad: That is enough to tick me off. Look, I would not mind a character whose actions/viewpoints are divisive...but to make that character mandatory UNLESS you're playing a Spirit Healer mage yourself...is infuriating to me.

What if I want to play an Anti-Mage Warrior or Rogue? What about not even Anti-Mage, but just someone who couldn't care less? I could Rivalry with the guy(I mean, it's not like either of his Friendship/Rivalry abilities actually improve his healing. If anything, Rivalry would make him a better healer, since he'd stay up longer.), but then I have to listen to him whine and whine about the mages and snap at me for not kissing his and their collective asses.

They could have made him much better...like Aveline. Technically, she's forced upon you too, since she's pre-specced to Tank. However, not only is she a great character(Mechanically and Fluff-Wise) with some funny interactions with others, but she's not divisive. Had they thrown the stupid Mage V. Templar conflict away and replaced it with something better, I might have even liked Anders. As it stands, I loathe his guts and wish I could make another Mage heal for me. Give me Bethany, for cripes sakes...:smallsigh:

Psyren

2014-05-21, 04:01 PM

As baseless as saying that things would go well - though more logical, since after Kirkwall the Templars were in a better position to fight if it came to that (better organized as a group, had immediate access to supplies and resources, generally more prepared to kill their Circles than the mages were to overthrow them).

The true logic is that they have nothing to lose by trying. Do nothing, slow death/lobotomy, die anyway. Chance of liberation, zero. Revolt, lots of fast death; however, Circle system becomes politically unfeasible,all-but guaranteeing liberty for future magi. And your own generation has a chance of liberty on top of it. A chance of something is better than nothing, especially with a sunk cost (die anyway.)

With mages going "we can't have any of this" and Circles rebelling one after another? That's what I feel he hoped for, not for something happening years after he does his thing.

But you're assuming that he wouldn't think that would take years to happen. He's been in the Circle for a long time; he knows how the colleges work and how they debate. This claim too is unfounded.

Besides which you're explicitly mistaken - he does expect events to continue many years later even if he is slain. "The sooner I die, the sooner my name lives on to inspire generations." That doesn't sound like only hoping for instant gratification to me. He's most certainly playing the long game.

The Templars as an order had left the Chantry entirely - however they are still united as an order (unless DAI changes things). Saying they can't be united is like saying the crew of a factory cannot possibly be united in rebelling against the owner.

First off, I highly doubt all of them have ditched the Chantry, and nowhere is this stated. There are plenty - like Cullen - who believe wholeheartedly in its mission, are devout followers of the Chant, or both.

Second, even if they've all left, that leaves the very glaring problem of how they're going to continue getting lyrium to feed their smack habits. Cut off from the church's purchasing power, it won't be long before they're screwed. I fully expect some strung-out, addled Templars among our foes in DAI.

Third and final - putting aside the former two concerns - even among those Templars who seek to hunt mages independently, they are likely to vary widely in their methods. They are no longer part of a larger military force. And with that lack of organization comes sloppiness/conflict - a mage advantage.

You know, with all this discussion going on about the morality of Anders's decision, if he was backed into a corner or not, was he doing the right and/or smart thing with the bomb, etc., I find it almost refreshing that my issue with the blond douche is much simpler...

He's forced upon you. :smallmad: That is enough to tick me off. Look, I would not mind a character whose actions/viewpoints are divisive...but to make that character mandatory UNLESS you're playing a Spirit Healer mage yourself...is infuriating to me.

What if I want to play an Anti-Mage Warrior or Rogue? What about not even Anti-Mage, but just someone who couldn't care less? I could Rivalry with the guy(I mean, it's not like either of his Friendship/Rivalry abilities actually improve his healing. If anything, Rivalry would make him a better healer, since he'd stay up longer.), but then I have to listen to him whine and whine about the mages and snap at me for not kissing his and their collective asses.

They could have made him much better...like Aveline. Technically, she's forced upon you too, since she's pre-specced to Tank. However, not only is she a great character(Mechanically and Fluff-Wise) with some funny interactions with others, but she's not divisive. Had they thrown the stupid Mage V. Templar conflict away and replaced it with something better, I might have even liked Anders. As it stands, I loathe his guts and wish I could make another Mage heal for me. Give me Bethany, for cripes sakes...:smallsigh:

Nobody forced you to play with a healer :smalltongue: Dumb down the difficulty as far as it can go, roll with two warriors and have them trade off aggro between potions etc. In the first act when you're short on cash, you still can heal with Bethany.

Or if someone truly is indispensable to your operation, maybe you should hear out their opinions once in awhile; food for thought.

Rodin

2014-05-21, 04:08 PM

Psyren

2014-05-21, 04:11 PM

You Wolverine-heal between fights anyway unlike DAO. Just bring injury kits in case.

Seatbelt

2014-05-21, 04:11 PM

Having a dedicated healer in DA2 just isn't necessary. I played on the default difficulty and never took Anders along. My party consisted of Mage Hawke (DPS and Control Build, no healing), Aveline, Varric, and Merrill. Didn't have any particular problems.

Yeah you don't need a healer. But it helps a bunch. Without a healer I had to spam pots like a madman during certain encounters. Like the High Dragon.

Also I hate rogues for the same reason. Traps and locked chests exist in the game. Fine that's cool. If I want access to them I need a rogue. Makes sense. Games should ALWAYS provide you with at LEAST two different rogues so you're not stuck with someone super annoying. Like Neeshka. God I hated Neeshka.

Ailurus

2014-05-21, 04:16 PM

Having a dedicated healer in DA2 just isn't necessary. I played on the default difficulty and never took Anders along. My party consisted of Mage Hawke (DPS and Control Build, no healing), Aveline, Varric, and Merrill. Didn't have any particular problems.

In addition to healing between fights, the potion drop system in DA2 is just exploitable too. Never bothered figuring out the numbers, but in my experience if you have 0 or 1 of a potion, the odds of an enemy dropping one is near-guaranteed, but if you've got multiples of one then the odds of it dropping are much less. So, use em if you got em (or sell them, its not much but early game running back to a vender after each encounter to pick up a few more coins for the potions is time consuming but still useful).

ScrambledBrains

2014-05-21, 04:19 PM

Nobody forced you to play with a healer :smalltongue: Dumb down the difficulty as far as it can go, roll with two warriors and have them trade off aggro between potions etc. In the first act when you're short on cash, you still can heal with Bethany.

Or if someone truly is indispensable to your operation, maybe you should hear out their opinions once in awhile; food for thought.

I like a normal challenge, thank you very much. And the cool-down between potions is too long for that to be viable. All it takes is for some encounter in Act 2 to wait till Aveline quaffs a potion(Since you are correct that in Act 1, I still have Bethany's help.), then snuff her, and the whole team goes up in smoke without a healer with access to a revival spell. Further, I don't like having to waste my valuable sovereigns on healing potions when I have more important things to buy.

:smallannoyed: Don't presume. I agree with Anders's point, that individual Mages should have the right to determine their own paths with or without the Circle and Templars corralling them up and clasping them in chains or worse. But I loathe that he is the only healer in the game. In DA:O, if I didn't like Wynne(Though I do since she's an awesome lady. :smallsmile:), I had the option of teaching Spirit Healer to Morrigan and making her heal. Was it perhaps not something Morrigan herself would deliberately do? Of course, but I liked the option. Here, it's 'Make do with Anders, make your main a Spirit Healer or suck down defeat for the fifth damn time because an Arcane Horror ripped Aveline into a fine red paste!' :smallannoyed:

Bioware took away your options and expected you to take what they gave you. I DO NOT APPROVE OF THAT.

Jayngfet

2014-05-21, 04:29 PM

Assassinate Meredith, blow up the Templar barracks, attempt to learn how to undue Tranquility, start a large group of mages to passively resist Templar demands in a peaceful manner, organize an actual army.

The point is, if you're goal is to save the mages, provoking the mass murder of all of them your trying to save to create a scandal is just about the dumbest plan I've ever heard. It only works if the goal is the war itself, and the way he goes about it does not put the mages in a position to win. If they lose, it is just as likely that it will result in even harsher restrictions put on mages as otherwise.

As it stands, Anders created a war where the mages do not have a command structure, do not have supplies, are several bodies completely out of communication with each other. In fact, let's talk about communication. The Chantry and the Templar control the information that the mages receive in each Circle. Meaning that news of the chaos of Kirkwall will reach them before it reaches the mages, giving the Templar additional time to prepare and be ready for an attack. Anders' war he created gives all the cards to the Templar, and to top it off tied the Mage movement to actions against the dominant religion of the land.

Right, but again you're misconstruing the actual goals discussed.

Justice doesn't want to save the mages, he wants to end oppression. That's the word he used in his initial plan and the distinction is a critical one. You're always going to get more mages born later, so provided their situation is different from the lives sacrificed now it'll be "worth it", even if you wind up killing thousands of tens of thousands of innocents to accomplish this. Anders never cared that much about individual mages made tranquil so much as that they get made tranquil anyway. Just like how he was going to attack the Baroness in the first game, but without your help every mortal victim would have died in that fight and left him to finish the job, even if that was his initial plan.

By having the Templars kill or pressure every circle mage, presumably this would provoke a reaction in and of itself. Therefore, even if the war is lost he still "wins" in the end. Even if everyone else loses.

Math_Mage

2014-05-21, 04:37 PM

1) Aren't you assuming as a starting point a Hawke that is willing to shank Anders? Something tells me his/her resources would not be available to do anything beyond what Anders already attempted, i.e. appealing to the Chantry leaders.
Right, because any use of resources on anything more divisive than appealing to the Chantry leaders is equivalent to blowing up the Chantry.

Wait, no, that's bull.

Meredith was the most paranoid person in Kirkwall - draw her where? None of your plans are well-thought-out at all.
I have a very, very low bar to clear.

'Also also,' you don't know how many people besides Elthina were in the Chantry at night, so loaded terms like "building full of innocent people" are unsupported. It went off in the dead of night, not at high noon during the Chant.
Someone else can probably answer this better, but all the information I have suggests that the number is 'many'.

3) It sure seems like it accomplished his goals to me. And I see no reason why it wouldn't have either. And even if for some reason it hadn't - if it had resulted in the slaughter of every single mage in Thedas and no small number of Templars along with them - there would be no possible chance of attempting the failed Circle system again. It would be political suicide for any noble or divine to even contemplate.
Oh, hooray, sacrificing the people for the cause. That's not losing sight of the real goals at all.

4) I saw no "smaller rebellions being put down." The timeline post-Straw is - increased security measures on the Circles, mounting tensions, College of Enchanters vote to end hostilities (failed), assassination attempt on Justinia V, murder of Pharamond and White Spire revolt, mass mage exodus to Andoral's reach, final vote to end war by Loyalists (failed), all-out war. All I see in that is a pot coming to boil; fighting, yes, but the mages are giving as good as they get.
Again, I'm working on limited information, but...

While Templar reinforcements arrived at Kirkwall to suppress further resistance, news from escaping mages of what had occurred spread to other Circles. Outraged that the templars of Kirkwall would invoke the Right of Annulment to justify the extermination of an entire Circle for the crimes of one apostate, some Circles revolted, while others were close to doing so. In response, the Templar Order cracked down, further restricting mage freedoms in an attempt to quell further disturbance.

Giggling Ghast

2014-05-21, 04:39 PM

I played about half of DA2 without a healer. I got through the game OK. Damage is way more important in DA2; I got far more mileage out of Merrill than I did Anders.

Seatbelt

2014-05-21, 04:39 PM

I like a normal challenge, thank you very much. And the cool-down between potions is too long for that to be viable. All it takes is for some encounter in Act 2 to wait till Aveline quaffs a potion(Since you are correct that in Act 1, I still have Bethany's help.), then snuff her, and the whole team goes up in smoke without a healer with access to a revival spell. Further, I don't like having to waste my valuable sovereigns on healing potions when I have more important things to buy.

You really didn't need a healer. I hated Anders too and I played a melee fighter and a rogue.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-21, 04:40 PM

The true logic is that they have nothing to lose by trying. Do nothing, slow death/lobotomy, die anyway.
Everybody dies.

however, Circle system becomes politically unfeasible,all-but guaranteeing liberty for future magi.
In the case of losing the war the system could become even more oppresive, perhaps going as far as making every mage tranquil or killed after the talent is revealed.

Besides which you're explicitly mistaken - he does expect events to continue many years later even if he is slain. "The sooner I die, the sooner my name lives on to inspire generations." That doesn't sound like only hoping for instant gratification to me. He's most certainly playing the long game.
So, hoping that a war will erupt in a few decades (if not more, since he uses plural)? I'd see that more as being remembered whenever a mage in the future would feel opressed.

First off, I highly doubt all of them have ditched the Chantry, and nowhere is this stated. There are plenty - like Cullen - who believe wholeheartedly in its mission, are devout followers of the Chant, or both.
Varric's statement suggest that enough have rebelled to be a serious problem.

Second, even if they've all left, that leaves the very glaring problem of how they're going to continue getting lyrium to feed their smack habits. Cut off from the church's purchasing power, it won't be long before they're screwed. I fully expect some strung-out, addled Templars among our foes in DAI.
I'd say they would be able to raid the supplies of many of many of the places they were to guard (aka Circles), which would allow them to go on for some time. Not much more can be said - we lack any details about the addiction.

Third and final - putting aside the former two concerns - even among those Templars who seek to hunt mages independently, they are likely to vary widely in their methods. They are no longer part of a larger military force. And with that lack of organization comes sloppiness/conflict - a mage advantage.
Their order was a military force before joining the Chantry and remained one when under its control. They will remain a military force.

One thing I forgot:

you don't know how many people besides Elthina were in the Chantry at night, so loaded terms like "building full of innocent people" are unsupported. It went off in the dead of night, not at high noon during the Chant.
Of course the Chantry was just a start - there was a lot of debris flying everywhere, a shockwave and we've seen buildings caught fire as a direct result of the explosion. Further innocent victims were all but guaranteed.

Psyren

2014-05-21, 04:44 PM

Bioware took away your options and expected you to take what they gave you. I DO NOT APPROVE OF THAT.

Eh, sometimes life forces you to work with people you don't like because they have skills you need. And art imitates life.

Right, because any use of resources on anything more divisive than appealing to the Chantry leaders is equivalent to blowing up the Chantry.

Wait, no, that's bull.

Your "solutions" (somehow poisoning Meredith, or hiring assassins) are bull too. Based on Zevran's discussion of the Crows, I doubt even Hawke could afford the latter, and the chances of the former working are vanishingly small, not with Meredith's paranoia.

Someone else can probably answer this better, but all the information I have suggests that the number is 'many'.

That's not a number.

Oh, hooray, sacrificing the people for the cause. That's not losing sight of the real goals at all.

The goals it's achieving, you mean? :smallconfused:

Again, I'm working on limited information, but...

That sounds pre-emptive to me, not a series of victories against disorganized petulant mages. Indeed, Asunder has the crackdowns happening long before open revolt e.g. at White Spire.

ScrambledBrains

2014-05-21, 04:51 PM

I played about half of DA2 without a healer. I got through the game OK. Damage is way more important in DA2; I got far more mileage out of Merrill than I did Anders.

And when your Tank goes down and your other Damage Dealers follow because they're waiting for their potions to cool down, what did you do then? Just keep reloading till you got lucky? Waste valuable tactics spots putting 'Use Potion' onto one of them? I'm honestly curious.

You really didn't need a healer. I hated Anders too and I played a melee fighter and a rogue.

I LIKE having a healer. I hate micromanaging my team to use healing potions, and I hate wasting tactics slots for a potion.

Archpaladin Zousha

2014-05-21, 04:55 PM

Just like Varric's cut dialogue said:

"Justice is a funny concept. It'll drive a man to perform the noblest deeds as well as the worst atrocities. Justice is a blade that draws blood from the innocent and wicked alike, and raised high, it can lead a charge that changes the world forever..."

Psyren

2014-05-21, 05:02 PM

Everybody dies.

So slavery is fine because slaves die eventually? Lobotomy is fine because Tranquil die too? What? :smallconfused:

In the case of losing the war the system could become even more oppresive, perhaps going as far as making every mage tranquil or killed after the talent is revealed.

I can't think of a faster way to get the Chantry itself destroyed, as if they start slaughtering people's children en masse like that. Mages aren't only born to other mages you know; in fact, frequently they're not, outside of Tevinter.

So, hoping that a war will erupt in a few decades (if not more, since he uses plural)? I'd see that more as being remembered whenever a mage in the future would feel opressed.

Not necessarily that it would start in a few decades, just that it would keep going for that time.

Varric's statement suggest that enough have rebelled to be a serious problem.

Oh, I'm totally agreed here. I merely happen to think the defection of their soldiers is a bigger problem for the Chantry than the mages.

I'd say they would be able to raid the supplies of many of many of the places they were to guard (aka Circles), which would allow them to go on for some time. Not much more can be said - we lack any details about the addiction.

Why would the mages who threw them out and then set out for the Andorals leave a bunch of lyrium behind them? Especially with a bunch of Tranquil to carry it safely? I doubt there are any "supplies" left to be raided. Indeed, I'm willing to bet lyrium shortage will be a plot point in DAI what with all the disruption going on.

Their order was a military force before joining the Chantry and remained one when under its control. They will remain a military force.

What do you mean "before joining?" The order was created by the Chantry.

Of course the Chantry was just a start - there was a lot of debris flying everywhere, a shockwave and we've seen buildings caught fire as a direct result of the explosion. Further innocent victims were all but guaranteed.

So, no numbers then?

The fires in that cutscene were already burning before the bomb went off. The debris I'll give you, though it seems to get blasted outside the city. That leaves a cloud of dust - not exactly nuclear fallout.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-21, 05:23 PM

I can't think of a faster way to get the Chantry itself destroyed, as if they start slaughtering people's children en masse like that. Mages aren't only born to other mages you know; in fact, frequently they're not, outside of Tevinter.
Again, that entrirely depends on how things turn out - people already fear and despise mages. A few more acts like the one in Kirkwall and they will praise anyone who goes an

Why would the mages who threw them out and then set out for the Andorals leave a bunch of lyrium behind them? Especially with a bunch of Tranquil to carry it safely? I doubt there are any "supplies" left to be raided. Indeed, I'm willing to bet lyrium shortage will be a plot point in DAI what with all the disruption going on.
That didn't happen in every circle.

What do you mean "before joining?" The order was created by the Chantry.
Technically you are correct - they were the Inquisition before signing the Nevarran Acord.

So, no numbers then?
Not really - just like there are no exact numbers on what happened to the mages in Kirkwall Circle (how many got tranqualized, killed or anything else) ;P

The fires in that cutscene were already burning before the bomb went off. The debris I'll give you, though it seems to get blasted outside the city. That leaves a cloud of dust - not exactly nuclear fallout.
Watch again (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRU70LEhad0#t=140) - there were fires that look like they were to illuminate certain places, but after the explosion they had greatly grown and fire started literally falling from the sky.

Math_Mage

2014-05-21, 06:21 PM

Your "solutions" (somehow poisoning Meredith, or hiring assassins) are bull too. Based on Zevran's discussion of the Crows, I doubt even Hawke could afford the latter, and the chances of the former working are vanishingly small, not with Meredith's paranoia.
*shrug* My first-phase-of-brainstorming proposals are made with zero knowledge of Meredith's habits or potential weaknesses. Anders has had years to investigate. He can have years longer to plan. More to the point, 'attacking Meredith' is only one of the many other things Anders could be doing. For example, he could be doing what Pharamon eventually succeeded in doing. (For that matter, Pharamon's discovery by itself is enough to force a crucial decision point, rendering Anders' actions good for little except increasing the body count both before and after the decision.)

That's not a number.
There's no exact number at which point an atrocity becomes an atrocity, but Anders was over the line, so what the hell is there to argue about?

The goals it's achieving, you mean? :smallconfused:
You're willing to attach genocide to the destruction of the circle system and call it a net win. If that's 'mission accomplished', I want no part of the mission.

That sounds pre-emptive to me, not a series of victories against disorganized petulant mages. Indeed, Asunder has the crackdowns happening long before open revolt e.g. at White Spire.
"Some Circles revolted, while others were close to doing so." What was this, chopped liver?

Psyren

2014-05-21, 06:39 PM

*shrug* My first-phase-of-brainstorming proposals are made with zero knowledge of Meredith's habits or potential weaknesses. Anders has had years to investigate. He can have years longer to plan. More to the point, 'attacking Meredith' is only one of the many other things Anders could be doing. For example, he could be doing what Pharamon eventually succeeded in doing. (For that matter, Pharamon's discovery by itself is enough to force a crucial decision point, rendering Anders' actions good for little except increasing the body count both before and after the decision.)

Pharamond's experiment was extremely singular in nature and it's completely impractical to expect Anders to have repeated it. For starters, he would have had to make himself Tranquil, and the complications only grow from there. It's not remotely worth giving serious consideration.

And we can speculate until the cows come home on what else he might have done. The measures I saw were reasonable, and they failed. So, time to get unreasonable.

There's no exact number at which point an atrocity becomes an atrocity, but Anders was over the line, so what the hell is there to argue about?

But there is a number at which one is justified - namely, when the number of lives that will be lost if it is not committed exceeding it. Do nothing, Kirkwall's mages die anyway, and the Circle's failed experiment continues for another hundred years, ruining how many more lives in the mean time.

You're willing to attach genocide to the destruction of the circle system and call it a net win. If that's 'mission accomplished', I want no part of the mission.

And by not taking part, you're allowing the ongoing genocide of its victims, which I want no part of.
It's a crappy situation, I agree. So were slavery, and the Third Estate, and many other uprisings.

"Some Circles revolted, while others were close to doing so." What was this, chopped liver?

I see no mention there of failures. So it looks like the plan worked.

Again, that entrirely depends on how things turn out - people already fear and despise mages. A few more acts like the one in Kirkwall and they will praise anyone who goes an

Who what? I think you cut off your sentence there.

That didn't happen in every circle.

You may be right; this point is speculation on my part. We can only wait and see what the lyrium situation will be in Inquisition. I doubt that the Templars will just wave a wand and solve the reason they were beholden to the Chantry in the first place so easily however.

Technically you are correct - they were the Inquisition before signing the Nevarran Acord.

The Inquisition was founded by the Chantry too, which is my point. There was never a "before they joined."

Not really - just like there are no exact numbers on what happened to the mages in Kirkwall Circle (how many got tranqualized, killed or anything else) ;P

But there are statements by the characters on how the number is growing. I didn't hear anyone give a body count (aside from Elthina herself) on the Chantry, and we see 5 people in the cutscene.
I'm willing to agree it could be higher than that, but not that the building was packed with people in the dead of night - that's ludicrous.

Watch again (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRU70LEhad0#t=140) - there were fires that look like they were to illuminate certain places, but after the explosion they had greatly grown and fire started literally falling from the sky.

I see embers fall and extinguish, sometimes in midair, without igniting anything. For a WMD it's remarkably well-contained.

Zevox

2014-05-21, 06:46 PM

But there is a number at which one is justified
This, I think, is where all of these disagreements are coming from. I, and I'm guessing a fair few others here, if not everyone that's been arguing with you, do not believe that. At no point does something like what Anders did ever become justified. The ends can never justify such means.

Rodin

2014-05-21, 06:47 PM

You're willing to attach genocide to the destruction of the circle system and call it a net win. If that's 'mission accomplished', I want no part of the mission.

This.

I find it incredibly difficult NOT to look to real-world events when looking at what Anders did, so I'll just leave it at "the end does not justify the means".

Anders knew what he did was a crime. He was willing to accept the consequences for that. The morality of it is pretty darn clear - blowing up a church is pretty much never a heroic act. Unilaterally starting a war is pretty darn difficult to justify as well.

The entire thing is categorically indefensible. Even if Anders is right and it's the only way to break the Circle system and get mages free, it is still an atrocity and Anders is still responsible.

Psyren

2014-05-21, 06:52 PM

This, I think, is where all of these disagreements are coming from. I, and I'm guessing a fair few others here, if not everyone that's been arguing with you, do not believe that. At no point does something like what Anders did ever become justified. The ends can never justify such means.

So would you have let the Reapers roll through in Arrival just to save one Batarian colony? That's pretty clearly a numbers game too.

Zevox

2014-05-21, 06:59 PM

So would you have let the Reapers roll through in Arrival just to save one Batarian colony? That's pretty clearly a numbers game too.
I said in a previous argument in the Mass Effect thread that I would have chosen an alternative if the game gave me the option, did I not?

In other words, yes. Even if there were no other way slow the Reapers down, I'd still rather deal with them sooner and give some of those Batarians the chance to escape than commit a mass murder.

Psyren

2014-05-21, 07:18 PM

I said in a previous argument in the Mass Effect thread that I would have chosen an alternative if the game gave me the option, did I not?

In other words, yes. Even if there were no other way slow the Reapers down, I'd still rather deal with them sooner and give some of those Batarians the chance to escape than commit a mass murder.

Except by doing that you did commit one, on a far greater scale. I guess that's why I can't grasp why the folks taking no action think they have the moral high ground here. Inaction can, in fact, itself be an action.

Math_Mage

2014-05-21, 07:22 PM

Pharamond's experiment was extremely singular in nature and it's completely impractical to expect Anders to have repeated it.
I'm not even going to bother replying on this point until you respond to the actual point I was making. You have a bad habit of transmuting others' statements into statements you can refute.

But there is a number at which one is justified - namely, when the number of lives that will be lost if it is not committed exceeding it. Do nothing, Kirkwall's mages die anyway, and the Circle's failed experiment continues for another hundred years, ruining how many more lives in the mean time.
This analysis fails on at least two counts, probably more:
-False binary between 'do nothing' and 'blow up the Chantry'
-Weighing only the deaths directly resulting from Anders' actions in the next 5 seconds against the deaths indirectly resulting from doing nothing over the next 100 years

And by not taking part, you're allowing the ongoing genocide of its victims, which I want no part of.
It's a crappy situation, I agree. So were slavery, and the Third Estate, and many other uprisings.
Pretty sure 'all the African-Americans died, but at least we ended slavery of African-Americans!' wouldn't have been called a net plus.

I see no mention there of failures. So it looks like the plan worked.
"Circle revolted, Templars cracked down" is success?

Psyren

2014-05-21, 07:37 PM

I'm not even going to bother replying on this point until you respond to the actual point I was making. You have a bad habit of transmuting others' statements into statements you can refute.

As I understand it, the point you were making was that he had time to come up with a viable alternative, and should have done so. But none of the proposed alternatives have amounted to much more than pipe dreams.
And I did address that in my second sentence - while the first was dedicated to addressing yet another pipe dream of somehow duplicating Pharamond's research - so I don't see where I was doing any transmutation.

This analysis fails on at least two counts, probably more:
-False binary between 'do nothing' and 'blow up the Chantry'
-Weighing only the deaths directly resulting from Anders' actions in the next 5 seconds against the deaths indirectly resulting from doing nothing over the next 100 years

1) It's only a false dichotomy if there are other viable outcomes.
2) I did no such thing. I'm considering the deaths of years of war in my analysis and still considering it preferable. Just as many other revolutionaries have done. Better to go down swinging.

Pretty sure 'all the African-Americans died, but at least we ended slavery of African-Americans!' wouldn't have been called a net plus.

For starters, you can't actually kill all the mages, because more keep being born, so this analogy doesn't work. And if it were even possible to stamp them all out, it would have happened in Andraste's own war (where they were trying to do that), which failed to even stop Tevinter.

"Circle revolted, Templars cracked down" is success?

Yes, because of what came after it (ousting the Templars, consolidation of magi in Andorals, the end of the Circle system.)

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-21, 07:48 PM

Who what? I think you cut off your sentence there.
Sorry bout that - not sure why did I miss that
Again, that entrirely depends on how things turn out - people already fear and despise mages. A few more acts like the one in Kirkwall and they will praise anyone who goes and kills them off (perhaps not the parents - but they'll be the minority).

The Inquisition was founded by the Chantry too, which is my point. There was never a "before they joined."
The Inquisition was founded 97 years before the Chantry (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Ancient_Age) (check 1095 TE and 1192 TE). The founders did follow the teachings of Andraste, but that's it.

I see embers fall and extinguish, sometimes in midair, without igniting anything. For a WMD it's remarkably well-contained.
And not the fires growing much larger? And statues falling (and likely crushing anyone/anything near?

Zevox

2014-05-21, 08:02 PM

Except by doing that you did commit one, on a far greater scale.
I am not the Reapers.

Moreover, you seem to be assuming that if they hadn't been slowed down by the events of Arrival, they would have won, or at the very least have done far more damage. Something which is pure speculation - not helped by the fact that the galaxy, as per usual, sat on its ass during the time that was bought by that event. Partially due to Shepard being imprisoned because of her actions there, preventing her from doing anything during that time.

And that doesn't translate at all to the Dragon Age situation, wherein you really need to stretch to claim that Anders' solution was the only way to solve the problem. Hell, it surely wasn't even the only way to start a war over the issue - and I would be perfectly fine with starting a war over the issue, as it's certainly one worth fighting for.

Psyren

2014-05-21, 08:15 PM

I am not the Reapers.

No, but you have the power to impede/delay them. If a truck is barrelling down on a small child within your reach, you are fully aware of it and capable of reacting, and you don't yank the child out of the way, you are morally culpable, are you not?

Moreover, you seem to be assuming that if they hadn't been slowed down by the events of Arrival, they would have won, or at the very least have done far more damage. Something which is pure speculation - not helped by the fact that the galaxy, as per usual, sat on its ass during the time that was bought by that event. Partially due to Shepard being imprisoned because of her actions there, preventing her from doing anything during that time.

It's not speculation at all. If the timer runs out in Arrival - i.e. they arrive without the delay of blowing up the alpha relay - game over, we're all dead. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98IO_wZFmLg) Presumably because without that extra 6 months, no Crucible, they reach the Citadel right away etc.

And that doesn't translate at all to the Dragon Age situation, wherein you really need to stretch to claim that Anders' solution was the only way to solve the problem. Hell, it surely wasn't even the only way to start a war over the issue - and I would be perfectly fine with starting a war over the issue, as it's certainly one worth fighting for.

Now this I can get behind - maybe there was another way to start the war. Not that it ultimately makes a huge amount of difference so long as that gets underway.

Sorry bout that - not sure why did I miss that
Again, that entrirely depends on how things turn out - people already fear and despise mages. A few more acts like the one in Kirkwall and they will praise anyone who goes and kills them off (perhaps not the parents - but they'll be the minority).

The Inquisition was founded 97 years before the Chantry (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Ancient_Age) (check 1095 TE and 1192 TE). The founders did follow the teachings of Andraste, but that's it.

And not the fires growing much larger? And statues falling (and likely crushing anyone/anything near?

And yet they still need mages for healing and to battle Darkspawn mages during Blights. Even the Chantry swiftly realized that.
Fair enough on the Inquisition but it still doesn't mean they can act effectively without Chantry leadership. After all, they presumably weren't lyrium smackheads back then either since that practice started with their becoming the TO.
I'm still not buying the collateral damage claims. If it was the middle of the day maybe, but Hightown is pretty deserted at night (except for roving, and that's even a plot point. I don't see those statues hitting anyone.

Zevox

2014-05-21, 08:37 PM

No, but you have the power to impede/delay them. If a truck is barrelling down on a small child within your reach, you are fully aware of it and capable of reacting, and you don't yank the child out of the way, you are morally culpable, are you not?
Such an example is not comparable to the situation in Arrival, because saving the child doesn't result in killing untold numbers of people, and actually solves the problem rather than merely delaying it.

It's not speculation at all. If the timer runs out in Arrival - i.e. they arrive without the delay of blowing up the alpha relay - game over, we're all dead. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98IO_wZFmLg)
Which makes no sense given what we know of how events played out afterward. But so be it, then - the situation is set up as a no-win scenario. My decision could not rest on that information, since I would not possess it when making it. And I would not commit such an atrocity for the off chance that delaying the inevitable will mean the difference between victory and defeat.

Now this I can get behind - maybe there was another way to start the war. Not that it ultimately makes a huge amount of difference so long as that gets underway.
It would make all the difference in the world to those innocent people in the Chantry.

Psyren

2014-05-21, 08:43 PM

Such an example is not comparable to the situation in Arrival, because saving the child doesn't result in killing untold numbers of people, and actually solves the problem rather than merely delaying it.

I'll just go classic then and point to the Trolley Problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) How would you resolve it? I would go for the loss of least life.

My decision could not rest on that information, since I would not possess it when making it.

But you are told and even directly shown what will happen if the timer runs out (Shepard gets a vision from Object Rho.) You can choose not to believe this of course, but not to claim ignorance.

It would make all the difference in the world to those innocent people in the Chantry.

I'm not sure of any way to kick off that revolution that won't impact innocent people somewhere, either at the inception or during the ensuing events.

Zevox

2014-05-21, 09:01 PM

I'll just go classic then and point to the Trolley Problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) How would you resolve it? I would go for the loss of least life.
In that problem, it is indeed best to pull the lever. But that is a no-win scenario, specifically set up so that your only possible choices are between one person's death and five peoples' - including a specific disclaimer that you have no solution which can prevent any deaths. It is not comparable to what we have here, where the outcomes are not so certain and can always be changed in other ways.

But you are told and even directly shown what will happen if the timer runs out (Shepard gets a vision from Object Rho.) You can choose not to believe this of course, but not to claim ignorance.
I do not remember the vision in question, but I sincerely doubt I'd consider any vision concrete proof of anything.

I'm not sure of any way to kick off that revolution that won't impact innocent people somewhere, either at the inception or during the ensuing events.
Impact? No - wars of course will impact innocent people. But that doesn't mean it's okay to go out of your way to kill them, ever.

Psyren

2014-05-21, 09:05 PM

In that problem, it is indeed best to pull the lever. But that is a no-win scenario, specifically set up so that your only possible choices are between one person's death and five peoples' - including a specific disclaimer that you have no solution which can prevent any deaths. It is not comparable to what we have here, where the outcomes are not so certain and can always be changed in other ways.

So people tell me, while being very nebulous in terms of details on how that might be achieved.

I do not remember the vision in question, but I sincerely doubt I'd consider any vision concrete proof of anything.

You don't have to - Shepard did. Much like Shepard believes it when EDI says they can go through the Omega 4 relay safely despite having no empirical evidence, and many similar situations where s/he believes something the player has no evidence of.

Impact? No - wars of course will impact innocent people. But that doesn't mean it's okay to go out of your way to kill them, ever.

For the record, I don't think it's "okay." Simply "less terrible than doing nothing" - much like pulling the lever above.

Zevox

2014-05-21, 09:21 PM

So people tell me, while being very nebulous in terms of details on how that might be achieved.
If you're expecting detailed plans on exact courses of action to take, you're expecting too much for a simple internet conversation on ethics and morality. It's a rather tall order to plan a revolution when you don't even exist in the world it's to take place in. Nor do you need another precise plan of action to look at one and reject it as unacceptable.

You don't have to - Shepard did.
But you were asking me my opinion. And at least during portions where Shepard acts without the player' input, there is a difference between Shepard and the player.

Beowulf DW

2014-05-21, 09:26 PM

For the record, I don't think it's "okay." Simply "less terrible than doing nothing" - much like pulling the lever above.

I'm really not sure about that. There were so many other options that could have been exhausted. Hawke leading a strike team into the Gallows to rally the mages and deal with Meredith while Aveline formed up the guard? Hawke calling Meredith out to a duel? Hawke's the Champion and Templars are all anointed knights-she couldn't have refused. Hell, drawing Meredith into a debate to push her over the edge while locking away/otherwise incapacitating Elthina might have worked just as well. I would have been fine with all of these options. Ander's bomb should have been the last result in a playthrough with Templar-supporting Hawke, if you ask me.

Jayngfet

2014-05-21, 09:54 PM

This.

I find it incredibly difficult NOT to look to real-world events when looking at what Anders did, so I'll just leave it at "the end does not justify the means".

Really looking at real life events through history it's pretty obvious the mages were always screwed. A disorganized rabble against a well armed and armored network doesn't really work well, especially at this tech level. I mean just look at the Jaquerie or any other equivalent in another nation for an obvious example. Barring some really smart tactics from people who've never lead armies against professional soldiers being stupid, there's no real chance at a level playing field.

Nerd-o-rama

2014-05-21, 10:29 PM

The fact that this debate has gone on for like eight pages straight now makes me both really happy and really sad I finally finished 2 when I did.

Jayngfet

2014-05-21, 10:38 PM

The fact that this debate has gone on for like eight pages straight now makes me both really happy and really sad I finally finished 2 when I did.

Hey, say what you like but 2 did what it was supposed to ending wise. When I killed Anders on my first playthrough I had to pause the game and think about it for a good half hour before making the call.

Archpaladin Zousha

2014-05-21, 10:52 PM

Really looking at real life events through history it's pretty obvious the mages were always screwed. A disorganized rabble against a well armed and armored network doesn't really work well, especially at this tech level. I mean just look at the Jaquerie or any other equivalent in another nation for an obvious example. Barring some really smart tactics from people who've never lead armies against professional soldiers being stupid, there's no real chance at a level playing field.
And honestly, I don't think that was Anders' intention. I think he did what he did fully knowing he likely wouldn't leave Kirkwall alive. And for that matter, neither would anyone from the Circle. They weren't meant to show that a mage's revolt could be successful. They were meant to be martyrs, his way of saying "this is what they'll do to us if we don't break away and fight them." Without Hawke's involvement it likely would have been a swift and brutal bloodbath, the kind of thing that gets other mages angry enough to do the actual organizing and rebelling.

Also, remember that Kirkwall isn't where the actual decision to break away from the Chantry happens. It's during the events of Asunder, and even then it's closely contested right up until the end, when more of the Templars' actions sort of show that Kirkwall's not an isolated case that the mages decide it's the last straw.

In Ander's mind, the destruction of the Chantry and subsequent Annulment is his way of saying "Wake up!" to the mages of the world. The show's not for the Templars or average people. It's for the mages, to give them a reason to want to rebel against the status quo.

Psyren

2014-05-21, 11:12 PM

If you're expecting detailed plans on exact courses of action to take, you're expecting too much for a simple internet conversation on ethics and morality. It's a rather tall order to plan a revolution when you don't even exist in the world it's to take place in. Nor do you need another precise plan of action to look at one and reject it as unacceptable.

And that's the double-standard at play here; apparently it's too much for me to expect a fleshed-out alternative to an extreme course of action in a less than ideal situation, but it's not too much for you to consider that perhaps those alternatives were considered and deemed unfeasible.

Or to summarize: "There's plenty of other things he could have done. We can't actually detail any of them as that's beyond the scope of this conversation, but if we ever get around to it you'll be totally convinced that the action he chose was inferior."

I'm really not sure about that. There were so many other options that could have been exhausted. Hawke leading a strike team into the Gallows to rally the mages and deal with Meredith while Aveline formed up the guard? Hawke calling Meredith out to a duel? Hawke's the Champion and Templars are all anointed knights-she couldn't have refused. Hell, drawing Meredith into a debate to push her over the edge while locking away/otherwise incapacitating Elthina might have worked just as well. I would have been fine with all of these options. Ander's bomb should have been the last result in a playthrough with Templar-supporting Hawke, if you ask me.

Case in point. "Rally the mages" won't work unless they're willing to fight, which (a) given that they're docilely staying in the Circle to begin with and (b) keeping very low profiles to avoid lobotomy and abuse, no one's going to be able to fire them up like that unless they are backed into a corner. Duel Meredith - I have no idea where you're getting this idea that Templars can't refuse a duel and she wouldn't just tell Hawke to bugger off. Pushing Meredith over the edge - given that Cullen was in lockstep with her until she tried to kill Hawke, I can't think what you might do to get her to do that aside from the very thing Anders actually did.

And honestly, I don't think that was Anders' intention. I think he did what he did fully knowing he likely wouldn't leave Kirkwall alive. And for that matter, neither would anyone from the Circle. They weren't meant to show that a mage's revolt could be successful. They were meant to be martyrs, his way of saying "this is what they'll do to us if we don't break away and fight them." Without Hawke's involvement it likely would have been a swift and brutal bloodbath, the kind of thing that gets other mages angry enough to do the actual organizing and rebelling.

Also, remember that Kirkwall isn't where the actual decision to break away from the Chantry happens. It's during the events of Asunder, and even then it's closely contested right up until the end, when more of the Templars' actions sort of show that Kirkwall's not an isolated case that the mages decide it's the last straw.

In Ander's mind, the destruction of the Chantry and subsequent Annulment is his way of saying "Wake up!" to the mages of the world. The show's not for the Templars or average people. It's for the mages, to give them a reason to want to rebel against the status quo.

Yep, all of this.

Zevox

2014-05-22, 12:40 AM

And that's the double-standard at play here; apparently it's too much for me to expect a fleshed-out alternative to an extreme course of action in a less than ideal situation, but it's not too much for you to consider that perhaps those alternatives were considered and deemed unfeasible.
What alternatives Anders may or may not have considered is not at all important to me. As I said at the beginning, what he did could never be acceptable. Nothing can ever make such an act justified.

Jayngfet

2014-05-22, 12:53 AM

What alternatives Anders may or may not have considered is not at all important to me. As I said at the beginning, what he did could never be acceptable. Nothing can ever make such an act justified.

Hell, in witch hunt even Morrigan has reservations about anything this crazy, and Morrigan has always placed zero value on the lives of mages and templars. Rather than being suddenly glad that Anders is going to ruin everything she seems more like wearily resigned to the whole thing and hoping something can be gained from it.

Even other crazy mages don't approve of this.

Nerd-o-rama

2014-05-22, 02:16 AM

The thing with DA2 - something I liked about the game, as I pointed out in the last thread - is that sometimes, every possible choice is a bad one. This goes for Anders as well as Hawke/the player. There's choices I would have made differently, or that depending on your values you could declare better than Anders's plan, but I'm fairly certain none of them are good choices. That's why the antagonist of the game isn't Meredith or Anders or the Idol or anything like that - the antagonist of the game is the Circumstances, the stuff outside Hawke's control that can't have a face put to it and has no good way of being dealt with, only alleviated and survived.

And of course Anders was intending to die there, even on Rivalry route. He wanted to be a martyr. Hell, it's the first time in his life that he doesn't even seem to consider running away to be a valid option.

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-22, 02:28 AM

@Psyren and Zevox:
For me there definitely is a number. I genuinely think Shepard did the right thing in Arrival, for example, and as Garrus says in ME3, you end up having to "sacrifice 2 billion people over there, so three bilion people over there can live". It's a reality at that point, because the alternative is total genocide. The ONLY alternative.

What we are arguing about is the number of the "number". I think Psyren has his number way too low, and Zevox has no number, so that's wrong too (for me).
The biggest divider is if deliberately killing innnocents to provoke a reaction is the right way to go... Which it is not. Never. Ever.

As said above, it would be possible to kill non-innocents. We see Meredith out and walking about with no or minor escorts. Why not just fireball her in the face then? For example.

Nerd-o-rama

2014-05-22, 02:49 AM

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-22, 02:54 AM

Eh, that has both practical flaws as a plan (taking the Knight-Commander of the Kirkwall Circle on one-one-one would be suicide for any mage not hopped up on a city block's worth of blood, and that's before accounting for the Lyrium Sword, the bomb is still really imprecise, and good luck to Anders convincing his only friends that assassinating one of the top four political figures in town is a good idea) and the basic moral problem of Anders's goal still being nothing more than provoking widespread violence and praying that his side wins.

Yeah but he'll get to die as a martyr, and blah blah.
Anyway, Anders is a monster, the ending (as I have seen on youtube) is badly written (but we all know the NEXT game Bioware did had GREAT endings :smallbiggrin:), the game is bad and Bioware should feel bad (which is what they did, since they are actually trying to avoid doing it again).

Seriously, the sales curve alone should have stock holders burn their stock and run for the hills. (I don't think I need to post that picture again, the comparison between DA:O sales and D2 sales).

Nerd-o-rama

2014-05-22, 03:23 AM

See, I don't get what's badly written about the ending. There's a few flaws in it (Orsino, too brief epilogue made entirely of sequel hooks, broken marketing promises), but Anders's parts especially were fan damn tastic and served exactly the narrative role they were supposed to ("lots of speculation from everybody", among other things). If anything, it's better written than the standard "here's a big setpiece and a slideshow of you living happily ever after" ending every RPG has nowadays.

Then again KOTOR II has my favorite story of any RPG and there's similar things that happen with the last act there. Except you'd have to be dumber than a sack of laser hammers not to realize Kreia is evil and the game was even more rushed so it just kind of comes to a stop after the final boss, but I digress.

Jayngfet

2014-05-22, 03:42 AM

Yeah but he'll get to die as a martyr, and blah blah.
Anyway, Anders is a monster, the ending (as I have seen on youtube) is badly written (but we all know the NEXT game Bioware did had GREAT endings :smallbiggrin:), the game is bad and Bioware should feel bad (which is what they did, since they are actually trying to avoid doing it again).

Seriously, the sales curve alone should have stock holders burn their stock and run for the hills. (I don't think I need to post that picture again, the comparison between DA:O sales and D2 sales).

...it did. Biowares issues basically directly drove EA's stocks into the ground. There's even a recording of their shareholders meeting at one point where Goldman-Sachs calls them out on fudging the numbers in a barely legal at best way, and EA tries to ramble it's way through damage control as things just get worse and worse for them.

If nothing else, we learned exactly how much failure we needed to beat into EA's head to get the message across.

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-22, 03:55 AM

...it did. Biowares issues basically directly drove EA's stocks into the ground. There's even a recording of their shareholders meeting at one point where Goldman-Sachs calls them out on fudging the numbers in a barely legal at best way, and EA tries to ramble it's way through damage control as things just get worse and worse for them.

If nothing else, we learned exactly how much failure we needed to beat into EA's head to get the message across.

very interesting. Though you forget that if we are honest, only two out of three were Bioware's fault.
EA had a bad run: First DA2, then ME3 ending debacle, then Sim City fiasco.

At the height of the ME3 thing EA's stock had dropped 10 percent in a week, I know that.

..Ah, screw it, here's the graph (PC games exluced, for some reason). As everyone can see, almost ALL DA2 sales were Pre-orders or Day One sales. Compare that to the very strong word of mouth regarding DA:O, that actually increased sales again after a few weeks

http://www.videogameologists.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/DA2DAO-2.jpg

Rodin

2014-05-22, 04:21 AM

The thing that ruined the ending for me was Orsino. Having sided with the mages as a Mage Hawke who supports the Circles, having Orsino go abomination because boss battle was extremely frustrating since it ruined the point of why my Hawke was there. Orsino up until that point had been a very reasonable and level-headed person, and him suddenly going berserk and resorting to blood magic seemed like a total character 180.

Other than that, I quite enjoyed the final battle.

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-22, 04:28 AM

The thing that ruined the ending for me was Orsino. .

Which is a confirmed Executive Meddling. EA demanded "MOAR BOSSFIGHTZ" and so they got it.

Rodin

2014-05-22, 04:43 AM

*sigh*

When will publishers learn not to cram boss fights into games that patently don't need them? Deus Ex: Human Revolution was actually worse in this regard, since it was entirely possible to go into the boss fight with no weapons that deal damage and no direct combat skills.

Then again, with all the complaints about the boss "Marauder Shields", maybe they know their fanbase will demand a boss battle no matter how out of place one would be.

Oh well.

At least the Meredith boss fight was suitably awesome (and justified).

Seatbelt

2014-05-22, 06:21 AM

And when your Tank goes down and your other Damage Dealers follow because they're waiting for their potions to cool down, what did you do then? Just keep reloading till you got lucky? Waste valuable tactics spots putting 'Use Potion' onto one of them? I'm honestly curious.

I don't have a solution to your dilemma because it was never a problem. If the party got ganked Avaline was often the last one to go down. In fact I basically solo'd the high dragon as Avaline after my party got killed. But that's a big IF. The game on normal wasn't super hard for me.

I'm also super lazy about using the tactics. I let them auto-fill and if I needed something done by a specific party member I toggled them and did it myself.

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-22, 06:37 AM

I don't have a solution to your dilemma because it was never a problem. If the party got ganked Avaline was often the last one to go down. In fact I basically solo'd the high dragon as Avaline after my party got killed. But that's a big IF. The game on normal wasn't super hard for me.

I'm also super lazy about using the tactics. I let them auto-fill and if I needed something done by a specific party member I toggled them and did it myself.

Soloing big enemies with her is something I did a lot. The first Ogre for example.

Nerd-o-rama

2014-05-22, 08:50 AM

I don't have a solution to your dilemma because it was never a problem. If the party got ganked Avaline was often the last one to go down. In fact I basically solo'd the high dragon as Avaline after my party got killed. But that's a big IF. The game on normal wasn't super hard for me.

I'm also super lazy about using the tactics. I let them auto-fill and if I needed something done by a specific party member I toggled them and did it myself.

I played on Normal, admittedly, but I always felt like I had more Tactics slots than I needed, especially past level 10 or so.

Psyren

2014-05-22, 09:00 AM

Hell, in witch hunt even Morrigan has reservations about anything this crazy, and Morrigan has always placed zero value on the lives of mages and templars. Rather than being suddenly glad that Anders is going to ruin everything she seems more like wearily resigned to the whole thing and hoping something can be gained from it.

Even other crazy mages don't approve of this.

You have no idea what Morrigan was talking about in Witch Hunt. She makes very oblique statements about how change is coming and people fear change so they will fight it. Extrapolating a critique of Anders specifically from her vague vatic ramblings rings pretty hollow to me.

What alternatives Anders may or may not have considered is not at all important to me. As I said at the beginning, what he did could never be acceptable. Nothing can ever make such an act justified.

Doing nothing is even more unacceptable and unjustified to me, so the only other option is to consider alternatives... and I'm just not seeing one with a decent chance of working.

Would I have rather he timed the blast so that only Elthina was inside? Yes. Would I have rathered that he found a way to assassinate Meredith instead? Also yes. But in lieu of both of those, he did the next best thing he could to get the revolution going.

As said above, it would be possible to kill non-innocents. We see Meredith out and walking about with no or minor escorts. Why not just fireball her in the face then? For example.

For starters, you're wrong, she doesn't "walk around." The only times she comes outside are for the Qunari invasion and Orsino's attempt to rabble-rouse the nobility. Remember that she's at least as paranoid as Anders is and very likely moreso. Worse, while we can't be sure exactly when she got the idol, considering that Bartrand sold it either before or during Act 2 she has had it for a very long time (years) prior to Act 3.

Even assuming she does walk outside and can be fireballed in the face, with just her Templar spell resistance (never mind whatever the hell the idol did to make her a boss-level encounter) that would be unlikely to take her out, and would instead likely be a death sentence for Anders, leaving no one alive to try and protect Kirkwall's mages. And the opinion of the nobles/templars had not gone against Meredith nearly enough for a larger scale effort - it wasn't until she tried to attack the Champion that Cullen even considered turning on her. (He was prepared to arrest you right up until the final battle even.)

Now, you could argue that maybe he could fireball just Elthina in the street instead, but that would hardly have the impact he needs to kick off the uprising. It wasn't just her death, but the huge and polarizing impact of the way she died that got people to wake up and take sides. Take that out of the equation, and the Templars would come after just him; and while the mages would likely be safe from the RoA, their current situation of being culled and lobotomized would not appreciably change either (except possibly to worsen.)

To sum up, no matter how he went on the offensive, he'd be throwing his life away and he knew it. Best to do it in the way that most guaranteed a full-scale uprising.

At least the Meredith boss fight was suitably awesome (and justified).

Justified sure, but I couldn't help but chortle at Super Saiyan Meredith. And when she animated those statues I really lost it. Hey Meredith, you know that bringing inanimate objects to life might count as magic, right? Never mind all the glowy airdashing.

Giggling Ghast

2014-05-22, 09:39 AM

Which is a confirmed Executive Meddling. EA demanded "MOAR BOSSFIGHTZ" and so they got it.

No, it wasn't a directive from EA. It was the gameplay and combat designers at Bioware who felt another boss battle was needed.

EA can be blamed for a lot of things, but Orsino'd breakdown isn't one of them.

Mx.Silver

2014-05-22, 10:08 AM

When will publishers learn not to cram boss fights into games that patently don't need them? Deus Ex: Human Revolution was actually worse in this regard, since it was entirely possible to go into the boss fight with no weapons that deal damage and no direct combat skills.
Yeah, it's a real shame. Not least because the game seems to have become more known for those than it is for all the many really good things about it.

Then again, with all the complaints about the boss "Marauder Shields", maybe they know their fanbase will demand a boss battle no matter how out of place one would be.
It does seem pretty likely at this point, sadly.

At least the Meredith boss fight was suitably awesome (and justified).

Justified maybe, but I found the whole super idol powers a bit ridiculous. Really, I'm not sure the decision to have her corrupted by the idol in the first place was the right one, it's not like her oppressive bent needed to be explained by it.

Psyren

2014-05-22, 10:53 AM

Justified maybe, but I found the whole super idol powers a bit ridiculous. Really, I'm not sure the decision to have her corrupted by the idol in the first place was the right one, it's not like her oppressive bent needed to be explained by it.

My question is why she bought it in the first place. If she felt she needed it to stop a perceived mage uprising, she was already off the paranoia deep end and the idol didn't actually do anything. Or maybe she was just cracked out on lyrium and it looked to her like a giant cocaine rock would look to a junkie, and she came up with the sword idea later.

And Bioware has done boss fights well before. Death's Hand and Sun Li from Jade Empire were fantastic. The Human Reaper, while silly looking, was still fun to fight what with Harbinger's posse flying in every few minutes with free heavy weapon ammo. Hoverboard Saren was fun, though skele-Saren was meh.

Zevox

2014-05-22, 11:17 AM

The biggest divider is if deliberately killing innnocents to provoke a reaction is the right way to go... Which it is not. Never. Ever.
On that much, Avilan, we completely agree.

Doing nothing is even more unacceptable and unjustified to me, so the only other option is to consider alternatives... and I'm just not seeing one with a decent chance of working.
It would be far better to do something with a lower chance of working than to decide that mass murder is ever an acceptable choice.

Psyren

2014-05-22, 11:40 AM

It would be far better to do something with a lower chance of working than to decide that mass murder is ever an acceptable choice.

But if that something fails (which it almost surely will) then you will have caused mass murder anyway - or at the very least, allowed the already existing mass murder to continue.

Again, just about every revolution in history involved a "mass murder." Should none of them have taken place? Would the world be better off with the Third Estate, or slavery, still extant? Would Thedas have been better off without Andraste's march, with slaves continuing to be fed into the woodchipper for greater magic from the magisters? And if you're okay with mass killing in those contexts, it is hypocritical to decry this one.

Math_Mage

2014-05-22, 01:08 PM

Even assuming she does walk outside and can be fireballed in the face, with just her Templar spell resistance (never mind whatever the hell the idol did to make her a boss-level encounter) that would be unlikely to take her out, and would instead likely be a death sentence for Anders, leaving no one alive to try and protect Kirkwall's mages. And the opinion of the nobles/templars had not gone against Meredith nearly enough for a larger scale effort - it wasn't until she tried to attack the Champion that Cullen even considered turning on her. (He was prepared to arrest you right up until the final battle even.)

Now, you could argue that maybe he could fireball just Elthina in the street instead, but that would hardly have the impact he needs to kick off the uprising. It wasn't just her death, but the huge and polarizing impact of the way she died that got people to wake up and take sides. Take that out of the equation, and the Templars would come after just him; and while the mages would likely be safe from the RoA, their current situation of being culled and lobotomized would not appreciably change either (except possibly to worsen.)

To sum up, no matter how he went on the offensive, he'd be throwing his life away and he knew it. Best to do it in the way that most guaranteed a full-scale uprising.
1. "Anders will die" clearly isn't a problem with attacking Meredith if he is planning to die.
2. Yes, a mage fireballing the Grand Cleric or the Templar-commander-slash-Viscount in the street wouldn't have any polarizing impact whatsoever...wait, what? And why would Meredith be any less likely to enact inappropriate retribution in this case than she was in the actual event?
3. Except that in the actual story Anders (a) clearly didn't throw his life away in the attempt itself, and (b) didn't guarantee an uprising. He just blew up a lot of innocent people and then tried to commit Suicide By Hawke.

Psyren

2014-05-22, 01:25 PM

1. "Anders will die" clearly isn't a problem with attacking Meredith if he is planning to die.

Not quite correct - He is planning to kick off the war, and whether he dies doing that is merely irrelevant. Simply failing to kill Meredith and getting butchered in the street would therefore be a waste because nothing larger would come of it. His chances of having the magical power to take down Meredith are already slim, and given her possession of the idol, even worse than that.

2. Yes, a mage fireballing the Grand Cleric or the Templar-commander-slash-Viscount in the street wouldn't have any polarizing impact whatsoever...wait, what? And why would Meredith be any less likely to enact inappropriate retribution in this case than she was in the actual event?

They know Anders is not part of the Circle - an isolated attack, even a successful one, on Elthina would not have sparked the Right of Annulment (and with it, the Circle Revolt.) Wiping out the Chantry itself on the other hand is a much stronger symbol. It showcases far more effectively than a single fireball the true destructive potential of mages once pressed. And that fear is what Anders was counting on evoking in Meredith, leading directly to the Right.

In short, you need both - Elthina's death, to remove the skirts behind which Orsino and Meredith hide and stick their tongues out at each other; and the Chantry's obliteration, to make it clear to the world that mages are too dangerous to keep locked up (one way or another.)

3. Except that in the actual story Anders (a) clearly didn't throw his life away in the attempt itself, and (b) didn't guarantee an uprising. He just blew up a lot of innocent people and then tried to commit Suicide By Hawke.

a) Why should it have to be during the attempt itself? He wanted to be around to stare them in the face,tell them what he'd done and tell them he wasn't sorry (non-Rival anyway.)

b) That's where I disagree, I think this did guarantee an uprising. When a single escaped mage can commit that kind of destruction, you're not going to convince any noble or divine that the Circle is working anymore. They will be forced to take sides, and once the Templars crack down the mages themselves will be forced to defend themselves. Until his nuke, the Libertarians were always the minority College; suddenly, the tide of opinion went the other way and the Loyalists ended up on the losing side. Just as planned.

Beowulf DW

2014-05-22, 01:44 PM

They know Anders is not part of the Circle - an isolated attack, even a successful one, on Elthina would not have sparked the Right of Annulment (and with it, the Circle Revolt.) Wiping out the Chantry itself on the other hand is a much stronger symbol. It showcases far more effectively than a single fireball the true destructive potential of mages once pressed. And that fear is what Anders was counting on evoking in Meredith, leading directly to the Right.

In short, you need both - Elthina's death, to remove the skirts behind which Orsino and Meredith hide and stick their tongues out at each other; and the Chantry's obliteration, to make it clear to the world that mages are too dangerous to keep locked up (one way or another.)

Do you recall what Mordin said to his student about supposition?

a) Why should it have to be during the attempt itself? He wanted to be around to stare them in the face,tell them what he'd done and tell them he wasn't sorry (non-Rival anyway.).

So he's egotistical on top of being an murdering zealot? Wonderful.

Psyren

2014-05-22, 01:56 PM

Do you recall what Mordin said to his student about supposition?

I do - Mordin said that Maelon couldn't be sure that a resurgent Krogan would force the Alliance to beef up security around Eden Prime. That is indeed a big leap for Maelon to have made.

But expecting that people will consider the Circle a failure when even a lone disgruntled escaped mage is capable of mass destruction - that's a more logical conclusion to make. Some voices will call for executing them all, some will say to abolish the Circle and come up with something new, but both camps will be opposing the Circle system as it currently exists, which is the goal. Similarly, expecting that the remaining circle mages will chafe at being harshly punished for the actions of one and decide they have nothing left to lose is also a logical conclusion.

So he's egotistical on top of being an murdering zealot? Wonderful.

He wouldn't be telling them for himself. He would be telling them so they knew that what happened was no accident; that it was a deliberate consequence of the conditions for mages within Kirkwall.

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-22, 02:59 PM

No, it wasn't a directive from EA. It was the gameplay and combat designers at Bioware who felt another boss battle was needed.

EA can be blamed for a lot of things, but Orsino'd breakdown isn't one of them.

Fine. It's still executive meddling, only worse since BIOWARE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. :smallsigh::smallfurious::smallconfused::smallyuk:

Mx.Silver

2014-05-22, 03:02 PM

My question is why she bought it in the first place.
That too.

And Bioware has done boss fights well before. Death's Hand and the final boss from Jade Empire were fantastic. The Human Reaper, while silly looking, was still fun to fight what with Harbinger's posse flying in every few minutes with free heavy weapon ammo.
I'm not saying it was a bad fight, just that the inclusion of said reaper was probably the stupidest thing to happen in that game. Similarly, the fight with Orsino makes no sense from a story perspective, but the actual fight isn't bad (certainly better than the anti-climax that caps off Merrill's arc*). Granted though, it does lack that opportunity for comedy you can get by equipping some of your characters with stun immunity in the fight with Meredith - which allows them to keep attacking her while she's monologuing.

* one of the reasons I have little sympathy for the keeper's side in that storyline is because of how trivial that last fight is. The first time I fought it I killed the pride demon in about 40 seconds. In my second playthrough, I don't think it even managed to get through its first cycle of attacks.

Giggling Ghast

2014-05-22, 03:22 PM

My question is why she bought it in the first place. If she felt she needed it to stop a perceived mage uprising, she was already off the paranoia deep end and the idol didn't actually do anything.

Keep in mind that, because of the activities of Tarohne's cult during Enemies Among Us, Meredith came to suspect that her own templars had been compromised by blood mages and demons. This led her to close ranks and limit recruitment. Meredith would have eventually come around to the idea that the only person she could truly trust to protect Kirkwall was herself.

And keep in mind that templars consume lyrium to get their powers. (Before you mention that dialogue with Alistair about templar abilities, know that Bioware has retconned it away.) Here was a new type of lyrium that seemed even more potent than the regular stuff; she would have seen in the idol the potential for a weapon that would allow her to defend the city on her own, if need be.

While I'm here, here's a new article on the Orlesian civil war and profiteering surface dwarves (mild spoilers for The Masked Empire):

http://www.dragonage.com/#!/en_US/news/the-orlesian-civil-war

Psyren

2014-05-22, 03:25 PM

The Orsino fight actually made perfect sense if you sided with the Templars. It's if you side with the mages where it isn't set up nearly as well. This is doubly the case since siding with the mages has Varric's epilogue state you saved many of them,

EDIT:

Keep in mind that, because of the activities of Tarohne's cult during Enemies Among Us, Meredith came to suspect that her own templars had been compromised by blood mages and demons. This led her to close ranks and limit recruitment. Meredith would have eventually come around to the idea that the only person she could truly trust to protect Kirkwall was herself.

And keep in mind that templars consume lyrium to get their powers. (Before you mention that dialogue with Alistair about templar abilities, know that Bioware has retconned it away.) Here was a new type of lyrium that seemed even more potent than the regular stuff; she would have seen in the idol the potential for a weapon that would allow her to defend the city on her own, if need be.

Yeah, that all makes sense to me - I could see Enemies Among Us being the catalyst for her initial interest in the idol. Good point.

Calemyr

2014-05-22, 03:46 PM

The Orsino fight actually made perfect sense if you sided with the Templars. It's if you side with the mages where it isn't set up nearly as well. This is doubly the case since siding with the mages has Varric's epilogue state you saved many of them,

Once you realize that Orsino was instrumental in Leandra's death, his Harvester stunt makes more sense. Especially siding with the Templar, as that tips the scale against him (Hawke can't save anyone, but s/he's really good at killing everyone). It would, however, have made more sense on the mage's side if he'd initiated the change before learning that Hawke had sided with them, only to realize too late that he was making a horrific mistake.

Random Mage: "Orsino, you don't have to do this! Hawke is on our side! The Templar are already being pushed back!"
Orsino (struggling to stop the transformation): "Th-thank you Hawke... I-I'm sorry I di-didn't trust you to stand by us-s... Bu-but it's to-too late no-now... P-please, protect m-my people..."
Hawke: "Sure. It's been a busy day, but's what's a few more Templar?"
Orsino (losing the struggle): "No-not from the T-templar, I'm af-afraid. I m-mean from me!"

Psyren

2014-05-22, 03:58 PM

If Bethany is around she'd be good in that "random mage" role.

Alternatively, give Meredith some particularly vicious toadies who butcher some younger mages in front of Orsino and corner him, pushing him over the edge. These would be killed by Orsino of course, leaving Meredith all alone in the courtyard for her own villainous breakdown.

Zevox

2014-05-23, 01:31 AM

But if that something fails (which it almost surely will) then you will have caused mass murder anyway - or at the very least, allowed the already existing mass murder to continue.
I do not share that viewpoint in the slightest. Trying to stop something and failing is not equivalent to allowing it to continue.

Again, just about every revolution in history involved a "mass murder." Should none of them have taken place? Would the world be better off with the Third Estate, or slavery, still extant? Would Thedas have been better off without Andraste's march, with slaves continuing to be fed into the woodchipper for greater magic from the magisters? And if you're okay with mass killing in those contexts, it is hypocritical to decry this one.
I'm not going to comment on real-world events, since that skirts board rules, and I do not necessarily know the full history behind them. As for Andraste, I have little knowledge of what exactly she did besides lead a war - and as I've already said, a war I'm fine with here, given the cause is just. It's murdering innocents that's the line that I do not believe should ever be crossed.

Grif

2014-05-23, 04:13 AM

*sigh*

When will publishers learn not to cram boss fights into games that patently don't need them? Deus Ex: Human Revolution was actually worse in this regard, since it was entirely possible to go into the boss fight with no weapons that deal damage and no direct combat skills.

A little off topic, but the Director's Cut version fixed that by adding non-lethal options to deal with the bosses. (Placing additional turrets and traps to be hacked, so technically you don't even need to use weapons) You still do have to kill the boss, but a true stealth run is now viable and can be completed without using a single gun.

On topic: given that I haven't been following Inquisition news at all, I just have one question: When is it coming out?

Psyren

2014-05-23, 07:56 AM

On topic: given that I haven't been following Inquisition news at all, I just have one question: When is it coming out?

October 7th in the US, October 10th in Europe.

I do not share that viewpoint in the slightest. Trying to stop something and failing is not equivalent to allowing it to continue.

And that is a valid interpretation of that ethical dilemma but not the only one. Clearly it is not the viewpoint held by Anders himself.

I'm not going to comment on real-world events, since that skirts board rules, and I do not necessarily know the full history behind them. As for Andraste, I have little knowledge of what exactly she did besides lead a war - and as I've already said, a war I'm fine with here, given the cause is just. It's murdering innocents that's the line that I do not believe should ever be crossed.

You don't have to comment on them (though for the record, few people know the "full history" of anything, even historians) but that doesn't remove them from context entirely. Andraste herself has parallels to historical events like Joan of Arc as well as clear religious parallels we can't discuss, This is therefore the mindset Bioware intended you to have, while playing these games, and attempting to divorce the two and then claim the game's narrative handling of the situation is lacking is doing it a disservice on your part.

Regardless, one thing is clear - they wrote that scene knowing that some people, perhaps even most people would absolutely condemn Anders for his actions and thus gave you the option to execute him on the spot. But the reverse is also true - they knew that some people, like myself, would consider him justified. So whereas you have no option to forgive and side with, say, Quentin, or Meredith - who have no redeeming value at all - the fact that they did so for Anders is itself proof that my perspective of his actions is every bit as valid as your own. And the above goes for Math_Mage, Jayngfet and all of my other detractors in this matter.

A little off topic, but the Director's Cut version fixed that by adding non-lethal options to deal with the bosses. (Placing additional turrets and traps to be hacked, so technically you don't even need to use weapons) You still do have to kill the boss, but a true stealth run is now viable and can be completed without using a single gun.

This is excellent news - I haven't actually played DEHR (it's queued in my backlog, ahead of Witcher 2 and the Dark Souls series, slated for some time after I tire of D3) but it's good to know I can do a stealthy-fisticuffs Adam and not get as thoroughly burned as the reviewers did. The system works!

Mx.Silver

2014-05-23, 08:07 AM

Regardless, one thing is clear - they wrote that scene knowing that some people, perhaps even most people would absolutely condemn Anders for his actions and thus gave you the option to execute him on the spot. But the reverse is also true - they knew that some people, like myself, would consider him justified. So whereas you have no option to forgive and side with, say, Quentin, or Meredith - who have no redeeming value at all - the fact that they did so for Anders is itself proof that my perspective of his actions is every bit as valid as your own. And the above goes for Math_Mage, Jayngfet and all of my other detractors in this matter.

Given Bioware's history of including 'bad guy' options as part of their moral choices, I would be hesitant about assuming that just because you have the option to side with Anders it means that the decision to do so is 'equally valid' as condemning him for the mass murder of civilians.

Psyren

2014-05-23, 08:20 AM

Given Bioware's history of including 'bad guy' options as part of their moral choices, I would be hesitant about assuming that just because you have the option to side with Anders it means that the decision to do so is 'equally valid' as condemning him for the mass murder of civilians.

I'm not hesitant at all. I've seen those "bad guy" choices in previous games - like poisoning the water dragon in Jade Empire, or siding with Morinth in ME2 - and even in this game, like allowing the Sloth demon to take over Feynriel. They involve your protagonist stooping to Captain Planet Villain levels of vileness and stupidity for short-term gain.

Sparing Anders had none of that. If they wanted that to portray it as a so-called "evil choice" it wouldn't have included dialogue like "I might have understood if you'd only told me," and "help me defend the mages." Can you picture yourself cackling and twirling a mustache while delivering lines like that? Because I sure can't. Hell, there are even musical queues for these bad choices to clue you in. None of the evidence backs up your assertion here.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-23, 08:23 AM

Regardless, one thing is clear - they wrote that scene knowing that some people, perhaps even most people would absolutely condemn Anders for his actions and thus gave you the option to execute him on the spot. But the reverse is also true - they knew that some people, like myself, would consider him justified. So whereas you have no option to forgive and side with, say, Quentin, or Meredith - who have no redeeming value at all - the fact that they did so for Anders is itself proof that my perspective of his actions is every bit as valid as your own.
Throught the games you also have the option to allow several demons to roam the world. The option to do so doesn't mean that an interpratation in which having more demons in the world is a good thing becomes a "valid" one.

If they wanted that to portray it as a so-called "evil choice" it wouldn't have included dialogue like "I might have understood if you'd only told me," and "help me defend the mages." Can you picture yourself cackling and twirling a mustache while delivering lines like that? Because I sure can't. Hell, there are even musical queues for these bad choices to clue you in. None of the evidence backs up your assertion here.
And all evil choices must work with a mustache twirling, cackling maniacs? Really?

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-23, 08:26 AM

I'm not hesitant at all. I've seen those "bad guy" choices in previous games - like poisoning the water dragon in Jade Empire, or siding with Morinth in ME2 - and even in this game, like allowing the Sloth demon to take over Feynriel. They involve your protagonist stooping to Captain Planet Villain levels of vileness and stupidity for short-term gain.

Sparing Anders had none of that. If they wanted that to portray it as a so-called "evil choice" it wouldn't have included dialogue like "I might have understood if you'd only told me," and "help me defend the mages." Can you picture yourself cackling and twirling a mustache while delivering lines like that? Because I sure can't. Hell, there are even musical queues for these bad choices to clue you in. None of the evidence backs up your assertion here.

I think we are arguing on too many levels here.
For me there were two questions:
The first question was not that sparing Anders is evil. For me it was a question of why, for Hawke, killing Anders was morally wrong.
The second question is wether during ANY circumstances Anders bombing can be seen as anything but henious.

Psyren

2014-05-23, 08:40 AM

Throught the games you also have the option to allow several demons to roam the world. The option to do so doesn't mean that an interpratation in which having more demons in the world is a good thing becomes a "valid" one.

What? How on earth is sparing Anders equivalent to letting demons roam the world?

And all evil choices must work with a mustache twirling, cackling maniacs? Really?

The ones that involve butchering a man who is not a threat to you generally do, yeah.
The truth is that Bioware tells you what they think of your choices right when you make them. You simply have to be paying attention. Changes in music, changes in lighting and framing, the wording your protagonist uses to describe the decision your just made, your party members' reactions, all of it has to be taken into consideration. In a word, tone - and a lot of people who misconstrued the ME ending made the same mistake of ignoring it.

I think we are arguing on too many levels here.
For me there were two questions:
The first question was not that sparing Anders is evil. For me it was a question of why, for Hawke, killing Anders was morally wrong.
The second question is wether during ANY circumstances Anders bombing can be seen as anything but henious.

1) I consider it wrong because killing him serves no purpose. It in fact actively harms the mages around the world, who need as many champions as they can get now, and all it gets you is some cathartic, base need for vengeance. When Sebastian and Fenris call for his death, they have no rational reason why - they are merely bloodthirsty.

2) The bombing is indeed heinous. But I can condemn an act while still acknowledging it as necessary.

Zevox

2014-05-23, 08:54 AM

You don't have to comment on them (though for the record, few people know the "full history" of anything, even historians) but that doesn't remove them from context entirely. Andraste herself has parallels to historical events like Joan of Arc as well as clear religious parallels we can't discuss, This is therefore the mindset Bioware intended you to have, while playing these games, and attempting to divorce the two and then claim the game's narrative handling of the situation is lacking is doing it a disservice on your part.
:smallconfused: Okay, you've lost me. I have not the slightest idea what you mean by this paragraph. It seems to have gone off on some topic other than what our discussion thus far has been covering.

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-23, 08:55 AM

Calemyr

2014-05-23, 09:08 AM

1) I consider it wrong because killing him serves no purpose. It in fact actively harms the mages around the world, who need as many champions as they can get now, and all it gets you is some cathartic, base need for vengeance. When Sebastian and Fenris call for his death, they have no rational reason why - they are merely bloodthirsty.

2) The bombing is indeed heinous. But I can condemn an act while still acknowledging it as necessary.

No rational reason? He's a terrorist. He's a terrorist that just blew up Sebastian's home and killed the only family he has left! Fenris, I'll agree with - Fenris just sees him as being as bad as any Tevinter mage callously murdering anything that gets in his way. But you honestly can't see a rational reason why a priest might want justice after seeing his faith, his home, his family, and everything else that means anything to him brutally and mercilessly vaporized? Sweet maker man, just what does a guy have to suffer before being justifiably enraged? Or is it just because he isn't a mage that makes it a mortal sin to want the death of an unrepentant terrorist and mass murderer? Templar and clerics (guilty or not) may be slaughtered en masse, but a mage who committed such a massive crime in plain sight? No, he needs to be above such judgment.

You condemn the act, but protect the actor. I can concede that there's a horrible sensibility to removing the high priestess, but it's still horrible. You're killing a peacemaker and dropping an entire world into war to free people who are by their very nature a clear and present danger to themselves and others. The abuses of the circles were an atrocity, so to amend one atrocity you visit a larger one that destroys the lives everyone - mage, templar, cleric, and unaffiliated - alike? On the the hope, the hope, that once the fires gutter out and the dead are buried that the survivors are more merciful to the super-powered ticking time bombs in their midst in the knowledge that all the pain and death and war that just happened was ultimately triggered by a mage. As opposed to, say, using it as proof that even Meredith's reign was too lax in allowing apostates to run free and... I don't know... burning anything with a magical bone in their body at the stake. Such an optimistic view of the human condition you have, to think that the survivors would look for solutions before finding someone to blame. Oh, how I envy your faith.

Psyren

2014-05-23, 09:08 AM

:smallconfused: Okay, you've lost me. I have not the slightest idea what you mean by this paragraph. It seems to have gone off on some topic other than what our discussion thus far has been covering.

I'm saying that we can avoid discussing historical revolutions to stay within the rules of this particular forum, but that Bioware still intended you to be thinking about them while playing the game (and judging the decisions of the characters within it.)

In other words, it's all well and good to condemn loss of innocent life from an ivory tower. but Bioware deliberately crafted a world that is far less clinical/academic than that. And therefore, that both viewpoints (kill Anders and spare Anders) are valid. I happen to consider the latter to be more valid, due to my own personal biases and upbringing, but I do understand why others might prefer the former.

First of all I find it interesting that anyone can combine these two viewpoints.

Second... I definitely disagree, on a very fundamental level about answer number two. Not only was it OBJECTIVELY not neccesary, it was also an act of pure Evil and can never MORALLY be justified in any way.
And I don't see any blood thirst. Killing him is just. I mean sure, we can spare him and lock him up in a very small room for the rest of his life instead. The important thing is to make sure that he gets punished for what he has done and hopefully make sure that he will never see the light of day. Wether it is by killing him or by keeping him in a dungeon for eternity is not really the interesting question. Although I would be tempted to argue for whatever solution he would like the less (which in this case would be life in chains). Hell, in this case making him a tranquil and THEN locking him up seems a much more fitting punishment than death.

You repeatedly tell me how unnecessary it was yet are unable to come up with a reasonable alternative. The truly reasonable ones (appealing to Elthina repeatedly, and even going over both Elthina and Meredith's heads to the Divine herself) have been tried and failed, and the unreasonable ones would either result in Anders' death or incarceration with no one left to champion the mages' cause from the outside. Revolution is the result of reasonable avenues being exhausted.

Second, "I would be tempted to argue for whatever solution he would like less" is very telling of your mindset. It shows once again that this is not truly about justice for you, it is about revenge. You want whichever punishment spites him most. And don't even get me started on your suggestion to lobotomize him. That punishment I could never see as being valid, even for an anti-Anders player. Tranquility is mutilation and should never be allowed at all.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-23, 09:30 AM

What? How on earth is sparing Anders equivalent to letting demons roam the world?
You said that having the option to do that means the interpretation is valid. That can't be an argument unless it applies to all possible choices - because if you argue that letting a demon loose is an exception, others can argue the same here.

The ones that involve butchering a man who is not a threat to you generally do, yeah.
Are you going from "sparing Anders isn't evil" to "killing Anders is the evil choice? Otherwise I'm not sure I understand this answer...

The truth is that Bioware tells you what they think of your choices right when you make them. You simply have to be paying attention. Changes in music, changes in lighting and framing, the wording your protagonist uses to describe the decision your just made, your party members' reactions, all of it has to be taken into consideration.
Not always - most certainly not to the extent you're describing. Also what reactions would you expect here? The companions tend to go over choices regarding mages based on where they stand in the larger conflict.

I consider it wrong because killing him serves no purpose. It in fact actively harms the mages around the world, who need as many champions as they can get now, and all it gets you is some cathartic, base need for vengeance. When Sebastian and Fenris call for his death, they have no rational reason why - they are merely bloodthirsty.
In most places that have a death penalty you'd get nothing less after killing innocents and plotting manslaughter and a war...

Tranquility is mutilation and should never be allowed at all.
You argue killing him is wrong, so what punishement would be left? Imprisoning a spirit-possesed mage might be somewhat... problematic, even moreso when the spirit is both twisted by the mortal world and fixated on a specific goal.

Psyren

2014-05-23, 09:38 AM

No rational reason? He's a terrorist. He's a terrorist that just blew up Sebastian's home and killed the only family he has left! Fenris, I'll agree with - Fenris just sees him as being as bad as any Tevinter mage callously murdering anything that gets in his way. But you honestly can't see a rational reason why a priest might want justice after seeing his faith, his home, his family, and everything else that means anything to him brutally and mercilessly vaporized? Sweet maker man, just what does a guy have to suffer before being justifiably enraged? Or is it just because he isn't a mage that makes it a mortal sin to want the death of an unrepentant terrorist and mass murderer? Templar and clerics (guilty or not) may be slaughtered en masse, but a mage who committed such a massive crime in plain sight? No, he needs to be above such judgment.

Murdering a man in the street is not justice in my eyes. No due process, no self-defense, no imminent harm to anyone else, just catharsis and revenge. Revenge and justice are two different things.

You condemn the act, but protect the actor. I can concede that there's a horrible sensibility to removing the high priestess, but it's still horrible. You're killing a peacemaker and dropping an entire world into war to free people who are by their very nature a clear and present danger to themselves and others. The abuses of the circles were an atrocity, so to amend one atrocity you visit a larger one that destroys the lives everyone - mage, templar, cleric, and unaffiliated - alike? On the the hope, the hope, that once the fires gutter out and the dead are buried that the survivors are more merciful to the super-powered ticking time bombs in their midst in the knowledge that all the pain and death and war that just happened was ultimately triggered by a mage. As opposed to, say, using it as proof that even Meredith's reign was too lax in allowing apostates to run free and... I don't know... burning anything with a magical bone in their body at the stake. Such an optimistic view of the human condition you have, to think that the survivors would look for solutions before finding someone to blame. Oh, how I envy your faith.

1) Elthina was not a peacemaker. She may not have fanned the flames of more open conflict, but she also did nothing to lessen what was already there.

2) Mages are not a clear and present danger just for being mages. Individual mages may be, but that does not give anyone (least of all Meredith) the right to judge the entire group for the actions of a few. I recall Bethany remarking to Aveline that she has a sword, but does not go stabbing everyone she sees, or Anders pointing out to Fenris that he has the ability to tear a man's heart out through his chest but simply does not go around doing it.

3) Faith? I prefer to call it courage. To quote Merrill, "Fear makes men more dangerous than magic ever could." If you can acknowledge that mages are people too, and that people (for the most part) won't go around killing other people just because they can, then you can acknowledge that merely having the ability to kill your fellow man does not mean that capability will be exercised on a whim.

And if you can't do that, then you are no better than Meredith's rampant paranoia and we have no common ground to speak of.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-23, 09:47 AM

Elthina was not a peacemaker. She may not have fanned the flames of more open conflict, but she also did nothing to lessen what was already there.
And here I thought stopping people before they unsheathe their weapons and jump at each others throats would be something a peacemaker does... And I'd bet everything I own that even if she did remove Meredith from power, Anders would still do his little stunt...

Psyren

2014-05-23, 09:54 AM

You said that having the option to do that means the interpretation is valid.

No, that's not what I said. I said "having the option AND having it portrayed/framed the way it is, is what makes it valid." That was the whole bit about tone, presentation etc.

Yes, occasionally they let you do Stupid Evil things - I mentioned that too, Morinth, posioning the dragon yadda yadda. This is clearly not one of those, and if you think so you're blind to all the cues they are giving you saying otherwise.

Are you going from "sparing Anders isn't evil" to "killing Anders is the evil choice? Otherwise I'm not sure I understand this answer...

The first one is accurate. For the second one, it's more accurate to say "killing Anders isn't my choice, and here's why."

Not always - most certainly not to the extent you're describing. Also what reactions would you expect here? The companions tend to go over choices regarding mages based on where they stand in the larger conflict.

Yes, always. Every one of those stupid evil decisions has an extremely dark tone associated that is absent here. You simply haven't been paying attention.

In most places that have a death penalty you'd get nothing less after killing innocents and plotting manslaughter and a war...

You're assuming I support the death penalty, or consider it rational in any way.
And even if I did, the only rational, non-revenge basis could be as a deterrent to others. What exactly would I be deterring here? Don't rise up against your slavehandlers? Wage nice, fluffy war that only ever hurts the people you're aiming for? Those are both pretty obviously out the window; it's an unrealistic standard.

You argue killing him is wrong, so what punishement would be left? Imprisoning a spirit-possesed mage might be somewhat... problematic, even moreso when the spirit is both twisted by the mortal world and fixated on a specific goal.

If you're asking what I would do, obviously my answer is for him to make it all worthwhile - to see the war through, fight for the mages, save as many as he can, make sure any lives lost were not lost in vain. Both he and his spirit can and do readily agree to that. For good or ill, the war is on now, so you may as well win it. Perhaps after the mages are free we can have a trial for him and let the mages he fought for decide his fate.

And here I thought stopping people before they unsheathe their weapons and jump at each others throats would be something a peacemaker does... And I'd bet everything I own that even if she did remove Meredith from power, Anders would still do his little stunt...

Why would he still kill her if she got off her duff and did her job? That makes no sense.
And no, stopping the overt conflict but allowing the injustice that is causing it to continue to fester is indeed not something a peacemaker does.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-23, 10:19 AM

The first one is accurate. For the second one, it's more accurate to say "killing Anders isn't my choice, and here's why."
And all of that (including the previous response) doesn't seem to make any sense in the flow of the discussion - the argument was that sparing him cannot be an evil choice since there are no lines fitting mustache twirling and cackling and when asked if every evil choice needs those you say you expect such lines from every choice which includes killing a man who doesn't threaten you (at least I'm assuming that was about Anders).

Yes, always. Every one of those stupid evil decisions has an extremely dark tone associated that is absent here. You simply haven't been paying attention.
And that would not be a stupid evil decision. :P

You're assuming I support the death penalty, or consider it rational in any way.
No, I'm working with what exists in the setting.

If you're asking what I would do, obviously my answer is for him to make it all worthwhile - to see the war through, fight for the mages, save as many as he can, make sure any lives lost were not lost in vain. Both he and his spirit can and do readily agree to that. For good or ill, the war is on now, so you may as well win it. Perhaps after the mages are free we can have a trial for him and let the mages he fought for decide his fate.
And from a point of view of someone who wants to punish the guy for his crime?

Why would he still kill her if she got off her duff and did her job? That makes no sense.
Because he'd still need something to kickstart his revolution - nuking the Chantry is easier than attacking the Templars (as you've said yourself) and works better for his goals.

Calemyr

2014-05-23, 10:43 AM

Murdering a man in the street is not justice in my eyes. No due process, no self-defense, no imminent harm to anyone else, just catharsis and revenge. Revenge and justice are two different things.

It was a battlefield judgment, and it was a battlefield judgement because Anders turned it into a battlefield. He intentionally started a war with mages as a principal faction whether they wanted it or not. It isn't murder when there's a war on, I think that's written down somewhere...

Seriously, though, what due process? What process does this culture give people half as guilty? What is due process in this city? We never see what happens to the previous guard captain and Aveline protects favorites (including Anders). We see no civilian prisons or civil authorities other than the Viscount and his guard. Now the Viscount is dead, the high priestess is dead, Aveline is quick to follow Hawke's lead, the knight commander is already halfway through the rite of annulment... What authority are you going to put it to? As Champion, Hawke is the closest thing thing left in the city as an arbiter, and Anders accepts Hawke's judgment, no mater what it is. Where's the reasonable doubt? He was right there in the city square performing the attack in public view, and he doesn't deny it and he doesn't even apologize?

1) Elthina was not a peacemaker. She may not have fanned the flames of more open conflict, but she also did nothing to lessen what was already there.

2) Mages are not a clear and present danger just for being mages. Individual mages may be, but that does not give anyone (least of all Meredith) the right to judge the entire group for the actions of a few. I recall Bethany remarking to Aveline that she has a sword, but does not go stabbing everyone she sees, or Anders pointing out to Fenris that he has the ability to tear a man's heart out through his chest but simply does not go around doing it.

3) Faith? I prefer to call it courage. To quote Merrill, "Fear makes men more dangerous than magic ever could." If you can acknowledge that mages are people too, and that people (for the most part) won't go around killing other people just because they can, then you can acknowledge that merely having the ability to kill your fellow man does not mean that capability will be exercised on a whim.

And if you can't do that, then you are no better than Meredith's rampant paranoia and we have no common ground to speak of.

Elthina kept a very volatile situation from descending into violence. She was maintaining the peace. She did everything she felt her position allowed her to do. She appealed to her religious authority to keep Merideth from going to far, but lacked the real authority to give genuine orders. Even if her death hadn't been so dramatic, things would have devolved into this quickly enough. Anders just made sure there was no question who was to blame for it.

Mages are a clear and present danger just for being mages. Individual mages may be able to overcome the risks inherent in their nature, but any mage is vulnerable to not just spiritual influence but their own hubris. If you've ever read the Discworld book Sourcery, the largest threat of Thedas-style magic is detailed there: when you're that much more powerful than everything around you, when you can force people to think your way on the vaguest whim, it is simply too easy to do so and takes an exceptional force of will not to. Mages are born holding the a handgun. A few just have the sense to use it wisely, more are taught to use it wisely, and many abuse it. But it's always there, it's always a threat, and just the games themselves are rife with mages abusing their powers. You can trust individual mages, to some degree. Anders proved how small a degree that actually is. But mages in general? Too much power, too little training, and too much risk of possession.

As for mage's power vs other power, one is inherent, the other is earned. Aveline's ability to kill is due to dedicated training, discipline, and a lot of hard work. A mage's ability to kill comes from simply existing. Magic is very much like a gun - it's too much power in the hands of people who didn't have to earn it. And it's prone to abuse. And while for every gun that's misused there are many more in the hands of responsible owners, all guns are blamed and efforts made to punish and stifle those who own guns regardless of their ability to own them responsibly. Likewise there are many mages that are not threats, but the fact that so many abuse them puts a burden and a prejudice upon them all. And people with knives do go on killing sprees. We call them murderers and we don't much like them, either. It's a potential built into the thing - just because an individual doesn't act on that potential doesn't mean the threat isn't clear and present in general.

Wait, you're using Merril as your voice of sagely wisdom? Wow. Besides being a mage and an extremely hard-headed one at that (and thus maybe not an unbiased commentator), Merril's "courage" leads at best to failure and the death of her mentor and at worst to the death of her entire clan. Merril's "courage" accomplishes nothing but damage despite her best intentions. To use that as a justification to nuke a church in a city already in the middle of a tension on the breaking point, to knowingly start a war, on the hope that people will do the right thing... that's not just monstrous, that's not just evil, that's so bloody stupid that Charles Darwin himself would be lining up to see him die before he can dilute the gene pool further.

Mages are a clear and present danger, and the circle of mages is not in itself the atrocity. It is the treatment of the mages in the circle that is the atrocity. Proving their potential threat does not help matters. Starting a war is even worse. The best case is if the mages lose and the winners show a little conscience. The worst case is if they win.

There are times and places for violence and war. Some threats can never be stopped without being put down. This wasn't one of them. Appealing to the public and sympathetic leadership, proving that mages could be useful and innocent, showing them the abuses of the Templar and the horrible things both Templar and mages have to endure... that could have lead to meaningful change and a compromise where mages could enjoy a good life without being an unchecked threat to their fellow man. Instead of trying to fix the problem, Vengeance decided to start a war, to make everyone pay for the crimes of the few in the belief that it's possible to bleed all the bad blood out of humanity. Wars don't work that way.

Psyren

2014-05-23, 10:43 AM

And all of that (including the previous response) doesn't seem to make any sense in the flow of the discussion - the argument was that sparing him cannot be an evil choice since there are no lines fitting mustache twirling and cackling and when asked if every evil choice needs those you say you expect such lines from every choice which includes killing a man who doesn't threaten you (at least I'm assuming that was about Anders).

I didn't ever say sparing him wasn't evil. There is no answer in that situation that is without some form of evil. Bioware is very good at creating morally gray situations like that.

Rather, I was condemning Mr. Silver's judgment, that sparing him is somehow a "bad guy choice" - i.e. one that only an abjectly Stupid Evil Hawke would pursue, on par with letting Feynriel get possessed and run amok.

No, I'm working with what exists in the setting.

You said, and I quote:

"In most places that have a death penalty you'd get nothing less after killing innocents and plotting manslaughter and a war..."

That doesn't sound like you were limiting it to the game's setting at all.
And even if you were (which I strongly doubt), neither you nor Meredith has authority over Anders, who is not part of the Circle which is her sole jurisdiction, so even purely in-setting I disagree. Nor for that matter do I acknowledge her right to Annul innocent mages, who are neither abominations nor maleficarum, either.

And from a point of view of someone who wants to punish the guy for his crime?

Why wouldn't "fight for the mages, win the war you started" count as a suitable punishment/sentence? In my mind, his only true sin at that point could be to abandon them after forcing them into this conflict. At that point, killing him is just pointless catharsis/vengeance. It adds nothing to the scenario other than slaking bloodlust; yours, Fenris', Sebastian's and Meredith's.

Because he'd still need something to kickstart his revolution - nuking the Chantry is easier than attacking the Templars (as you've said yourself) and works better for his goals.

I would hope that deposing Meredith would signify a desire to make the Circle better (e.g. consider giving well-behaved mages some freedom.) It would show that Elthina and/or Justinia actually have lines they won't cross. If they don't then you're right, the revolution would still be warranted.

Unfortunately we didn't even get that far. Elthina and Justinia proved they have no interest in removing Meredith and therefore no interest in trying to make the Circle any better - hence its failure.

Calemyr

2014-05-23, 11:06 AM

Why wouldn't "fight for the mages, win the war you started" count as a suitable punishment/sentence? In my mind, his only true sin at that point could be to abandon them after forcing them into this conflict. At that point, killing him is just pointless catharsis/vengeance. It adds nothing to the scenario other than slaking bloodlust; yours, Fenris', Sebastian's and Meredith's.

Really? "I heard you nuked a church to start a war, so as punishment I'm going to let you take part of this war and hope you win."? "I heard you robbed a bank, so as punishment I'm going to let you spend all this money."? This is your idea of punishment? Yeah, I'm beginning to see where we might have an irreconcilable disconnect.

I would hope that deposing Meredith would signify a desire to make the Circle better (e.g. consider giving well-behaved mages some freedom.) It would show that Elthina and/or Justinia actually have lines they won't cross. If they don't then you're right, the revolution would still be warranted.

Unfortunately we didn't even get that far. Elthina and Justinia proved they have no interest in removing Meredith and therefore no interest in trying to make the Circle any better - hence its failure.

It's established early in the first act that Merideth has massive influence and support among the upper echelons of society. This is probably because Kirkwall is always rotten with blood mages and demons, and Merideth's original hard-but-fair stance* is appealing when things are so bad. Removing her from her position would be next to impossible without a change in popular opinion.

* And while I know you'll scoff at that thought, but Merideth's stance in the beginning is nowhere near as extreme as it is in the ending. She is disgusted by that one templar's abuse of Tranquility and flat out refuses to support his appeals to Justinia to expand use of the rite. She's also willing to accept that sometimes a self-declared fugitive blood mage could simply be a sheltered moron looking to get lucky. She acknowledges that mages are humans while also acknowledging they represent a serious threat that is her responsibility to manage.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-23, 11:08 AM

I didn't ever say sparing him wasn't evil. There is no answer in that situation that is without some form of evil. Rather, I was condemning Mr. Silver's judgment, that sparing him is somehow a "bad guy choice" - i.e. one that only an abjectly Stupid Evil Hawke would pursue, on par with letting Feynriel get possessed and run amok.
There are other ways of being evil than stupid evil and you still jumped from discussing that to knifing Anders being a stupid evil thing.

Bioware is very good at creating morally gray situations like that.
I'd say that right now they are capable of making morally gray situations only by having stupid evil vs stupid evil...

And even if you were (which I strongly doubt), neither you nor Meredith has authority over Anders, who is not part of the Circle which is her sole jurisdiction, so even purely in-setting I disagree. Nor for that matter do I acknowledge her right to Annul innocent mages, who are neither abominations nor maleficarum, either.
Why doesn't she? He would be removed from the Circle authority only when serving the Wardens - but he ran away from them. He also isn't an innocent mage and is very close to what an abomination is.

Why wouldn't "fight for the mages, win the war you started" count as a suitable punishment/sentence?
Punish him by allowing the guy to achieve his goals? That's an... interesting concept of punishement. What will be next, sending a pedophile to a kindergarten to do as he pleases?

At that point, killing him is just pointless catharsis/vengeance. It adds nothing to the scenario other than slaking bloodlust; yours, Fenris', Sebastian's and Meredith's.
Imprisoning a killer (I'm talking in general, not about this particular case) also doesn't add anything to the scenario.

I would hope that deposing Meredith would signify a desire to make the Circle better (e.g. consider giving well-behaved mages some freedom.) It would show that Elthina and/or Justinia actually have lines they won't cross. If they don't then you're right, the revolution would still be warranted.

Unfortunately we didn't even get that far. Elthina and Justinia proved they have no interest in removing Meredith and therefore no interest in trying to make the Circle any better - hence its failure.
Anders wants to destroy the whole system, not that single Circle. Even if things would change for the better in Kirkwall, it wouldn't matter.

Edit:

Actually, I do remember a news piece on a rapist sentenced to community service at a rape crisis center...
Fine, I'll clarify.

Calemyr

2014-05-23, 11:11 AM

Punish him by allowing the guy to achieve his goals? That's an... interesting concept of punishement. What will be next, sending a pedophile to a kindergarten?

Actually, I do remember a news piece on a rapist sentenced to community service at a rape crisis center...

Thialfi

2014-05-23, 01:04 PM

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-23, 01:42 PM

You repeatedly tell me how unnecessary it was yet are unable to come up with a reasonable alternative.

---

Second, "I would be tempted to argue for whatever solution he would like less" is very telling of your mindset. It shows once again that this is not truly about justice for you, it is about revenge. You want whichever punishment spites him most. And don't even get me started on your suggestion to lobotomize him. That punishment I could never see as being valid, even for an anti-Anders player. Tranquility is mutilation and should never be allowed at all.

Why should I come up with an alternative? It's Anders' problem to come up with an alternative.

---

Tranquility is necessary. That, or summarized executions for dangerous mages. Seriously, you pick.
That it was used to excess in Kirkwall is another matter.

As for revenge... It's kind of ironic, isn't it? You defend one act of vengeance, but think another is despicable. And no, it's not revenge. It's justice. The punishment must fit the crime, otherwise the justice system doesn't work. Death or tranquilty + prison is the two reasonable options for a terrorist mage. He has to be tranquil if left alive, since well, he's a mage.

Ajadea

2014-05-23, 03:56 PM

Given the reactions of Karl and Pharamond to being freed from Tranquility, summarized executions seem almost merciful in comparison. Even if the only two choices are Tranquility or death, the mage deserves the option to choose death. And as early as Origins, you can see that Tranquility doesn't exactly work as advertised. Remember in the Circle Tower, one of the rooms contains three imprisoned Tranquil around that statue you need for Watchguard of the Reaching? If you don't kill the demons fast enough, the Tranquil become abominations.

As a side note, arguing whether or not killing Anders is mindless revenge for the dead or seeing justice done seems remarkably apt. So, you know, kudos to the writers there.

Giggling Ghast

2014-05-23, 04:16 PM

Grab your gowns and your masks, because the Inquisitor has an invitation to a costume party.

http://www.dragonage.com/#!/en_US/news/first-look-halamshiral?utm_campaign=da-social-global-ic-tw-social-global-ic-tw-halamshiral-img-site-ramp&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&sourceid=da-social-global-ic-tw-social-global-ic-tw-halamshiral-img-site-ramp&cid=21913&ts=1400879624205

If for some reason you want to hear Steve Valentine talk about his experience with Dragon Age fans and see Bioware's community manager (that girl from Heroes of Cosplay) act like Annie from Misery, they covered both of your bases this morning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFDDUxUMSic

I do think Tranquility has its place. I recall reading at least one account by a Tranquil who was content with her existence, as it freed her from the trepidations of demons she was too weak to fend off.

Jayngfet

2014-05-23, 04:39 PM

Grab your gowns and your masks, because the Inquisitor has an invitation to a costume party.

http://www.dragonage.com/#!/en_US/news/first-look-halamshiral?utm_campaign=da-social-global-ic-tw-social-global-ic-tw-halamshiral-img-site-ramp&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&sourceid=da-social-global-ic-tw-social-global-ic-tw-halamshiral-img-site-ramp&cid=21913&ts=1400879624205

You see, this is the thing that gets me excited for inquisition. That concept art shows some lovely architecture and costuming and it's the exact sort of intrigue Bioware can be decent at, when they don't decide world-ending corrupting monsters is what the players really want.

Though thinking about it, this seems like the place you'd want to bring Morrigan.

Though a part of me is hoping for some bizarre reason that Morrigan is something resembling a rational human being this time around.

Beowulf DW

2014-05-23, 04:53 PM

Though a part of me is hoping for some bizarre reason that Morrigan is something resembling a rational human being this time around.

Having kids and (potentially) being in love with somebody whose job description is "Defend humanity" can do wonders for a person's temperament.

To provide a personal example, I'm given to understand that my grandfather was once had a rather fiery temper, but cooled down significantly by the time I came on the scene. Of course, for him it took two generations of the pitter-patter of little feet, but it did work in the end.

Giggling Ghast

2014-05-23, 04:55 PM

You see, this is the thing that gets me excited for inquisition. That concept art shows some lovely architecture and costuming and it's the exact sort of intrigue Bioware can be decent at, when they don't decide world-ending corrupting monsters is what the players really want.

Though thinking about it, this seems like the place you'd want to bring Morrigan.

Morrigan's there, boyo. She insinuated herself into Empress Celene's court.

Dienekes

2014-05-23, 05:05 PM

You see, this is the thing that gets me excited for inquisition. That concept art shows some lovely architecture and costuming and it's the exact sort of intrigue Bioware can be decent at, when they don't decide world-ending corrupting monsters is what the players really want.

Though thinking about it, this seems like the place you'd want to bring Morrigan.

Though a part of me is hoping for some bizarre reason that Morrigan is something resembling a rational human being this time around.

If she isn't, there's a part of me that's hoping for some bizarre reason I can finally put an end to her this time around.

ShinyRocks

2014-05-23, 06:47 PM

I do think Tranquility has its place. I recall reading at least one account by a Tranquil who was content with her existence, as it freed her from the trepidations of demons she was too weak to fend off.

But as we see with Karl, being satisfied with your own Tranquility is a lie, an illusion. When Karl's real personality breaks out, he begs to be killed. Being content with your own lobotomised existence isn't content at all, when you're literally incapable of comprehending otherwise. Even my current playthrough of Hypocrite Hawke who's a mage who sides with the Templars at all times draws the line at making Fenriel Tranquil. It's abhorrent.

I'm doing this pro-Templar playthrough to see the results and get the Achievements, but I will always be pro-mage. 'You are potentially dangerous, so we're going to lock ALL of you down, forever' is simply unacceptable to me.

Zevox

2014-05-23, 07:43 PM

Hell, in this case making him a tranquil and THEN locking him up seems a much more fitting punishment than death.
I was mostly agreeing with your post there up until this line. Nobody deserves to be made tranquil, especially against their will. Nobody.

I'm saying that we can avoid discussing historical revolutions to stay within the rules of this particular forum, but that Bioware still intended you to be thinking about them while playing the game (and judging the decisions of the characters within it.)
Still not following. I don't see how such things would ever alter my judgment of Anders' actions. Unless you're somehow under the impression that the war that he started having an ultimately good outcome would affect that? Because it would not. Wars can be started in any number of ways, not just by mass murders. And no ultimately good side-effect down the line can ever change how atrocious a crime that was. There is a distinction to be made between judgment of a war as a whole and judgment of any given event within it, including its triggering event.

Psyren

2014-05-23, 07:45 PM

Punish him by allowing the guy to achieve his goals? That's an... interesting concept of punishement. What will be next, sending a pedophile to a kindergarten to do as he pleases?

Wow. I'll respond to the rest of it later, but seriously, wow, this has to be one of the most ridiculous, nonsensical analogies I've ever seen.

Actually, I do remember a news piece on a rapist sentenced to community service at a rape crisis center...

...And apparently it was just as bad before the edit too. Truly amazing.

1. Of course killing Anders serves a purpose. He just proved himself a terrorist that places no value on the sanctity of innocent life. He is beyond redemption. You currently have him in custody, but with chaos surrounding you, there is no guarantee that he will wind up incarcerated for the rest of his life. Killing him makes the world a safer place by ensuring that he never repeats his actions. He is a monster and needs to be put down. Also, the only possible assistance that Anders can provide for any mage now is to have his head delivered on a platter to the chantry as a peace offering.

2. Not only do I believe that his actions were not necessary, I firmly believe that no character in the game did more harm to the cause of mages than Anders. Extinction is now firmly on the table. Negotiation is now impossible. Every non mage has now been given a very good reason to fear and hate mages.

1) Yes, lets make peace with the lobotomizers who tear children from their parents arms. More status quo with a side of fries, please.
2) "Extinction?" They found a way to prevent people from having mage children, then? Or a way to deal with the darkspawn/qunari magi without magic of their own? Utterly ridiculous. Maybe some think we can do without the mages, and they're welcome to try rubbing them all out, but humanity would rather swiftly follow suit even if that were possible.

Jayngfet

2014-05-23, 08:26 PM

1) Yes, lets make peace with the lobotomizers who tear children from their parents arms. More status quo with a side of fries, please.

As opposed to what? Forcing them to fight in a war they didn't ask for and making them die for your beliefs? Through the whole trilogy we've rarely if ever heard the opinions on an actual circle mage on this issue. It's basically just been all Maleficar pissing around over an issue that barely affects them anyway. Wynne obviously had some issues with the circle but it was always Morrigan who got all hotheaded and outspoken about the issue. Hell, in Witch Hunt you actually have a circle mage in your party and he's incredibly level headed and reasonable. He doesn't feel particularly repressed, hell, he got permission to leave for work a long time ago and was still sticking around. Even Anders jokes around with it more than Velanna, despite being hunted down more than half a dozen times and barely escaping with his life, and he only got extreme after he left for good and went crazy with vengance(literally).

All this does is kill the ones it claims to save. Which was always the intention. Like I hate to keep overstating this, but Justice point blank tells Anders that he's ok with attacking the templars and causing war even if it results in the death of Anders and other mages, even before he turned into Vengance.

Saving people was never on the table. It was never something to be discussed. It was always about someone from the outside not liking how things looked without understanding it, and demanding violent action be taken to right a wrong they had little understanding of.

Psyren

2014-05-23, 08:46 PM

As opposed to what? Forcing them to fight in a war they didn't ask for and making them die for your beliefs? Through the whole trilogy we've rarely if ever heard the opinions on an actual circle mage on this issue.

You're joking, right? (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Fraternities_of_Enchanters) We have way more than the opinions of "one mage."

Saving people was never on the table. It was never something to be discussed. It was always about someone from the outside not liking how things looked without understanding it, and demanding violent action be taken to right a wrong they had little understanding of.

Exactly how much "understanding" of lobotomy do you need before you realize it's bad? Especially given the one testimony we have of someone who has lived it, as quoted above by ShinyRocks, describes it as nothing short of horrific torture.

Giggling Ghast

2014-05-23, 08:51 PM

But as we see with Karl, being satisfied with your own Tranquility is a lie, an illusion. When Karl's real personality breaks out, he begs to be killed. Being content with your own lobotomised existence isn't content at all, when you're literally incapable of comprehending otherwise. Even my current playthrough of Hypocrite Hawke who's a mage who sides with the Templars at all times draws the line at making Fenriel Tranquil. It's abhorrent

Karl was also made Tranquil against his will after he had passed the Harrowing. The mage I referred to had willingly been made Tranquil, and had spent most of her life in fear from demonic possession.

And I'd sooner make Feynriel Tranquil than turn him into an abomination. Luckily, there is a third path.

Jayngfet

2014-05-23, 08:53 PM

You're joking, right? (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Fraternities_of_Enchanters) We have way more than the opinions of "one mage."

Right, and how many of them said "lets kill a bunch of innocents and drag every mage into a world war?"

Exactly how much "understanding" of lobotomy do you need before you realize it's bad? Especially given the one testimony we have of someone who has lived it, as quoted above by ShinyRocks, describes it as nothing short of horrific torture.

Enough to understand that bombing dudes isn't exactly an ideal solution. When Justice came up with that plan, he knew exactly two mages, one of which had nothing to do with the circle in any real manner.

Psyren

2014-05-23, 09:06 PM

Right, and how many of them said "lets kill a bunch of innocents and drag every mage into a world war?"

Saying that specifically is irrelevant. It happened, the war is on, may as well fight - and that's exactly the decision they made.

Enough to understand that bombing dudes isn't exactly an ideal solution. When Justice came up with that plan, he knew exactly two mages, one of which had nothing to do with the circle in any real manner.

Justice became Anders, and knows everything he knows. "We are one now." Janders correctly predicted how the mages would react.

Beowulf DW

2014-05-23, 09:59 PM

Saying that specifically is irrelevant. It happened, the war is on, may as well fight - and that's exactly the decision they made.

"We've conscripted you into a war you didn't even want for a cause you might not even have cared about because of people you never even knew. Who cares what you think, or what you wanted? You have to fight now."

It doesn't bother you at all that one person, one deeply flawed person, has plunged the world into war? Not just the mages and templars, but just about all of Thedas?

It's clear Psyren that our moral compasses on this matter are pointing to some rather different "Norths." Nothing you have said has convinced me that Anders is in anyway justified, and the more I hear from you, the more I disagree with you. Zealotry and extremism. This focus on one singular goal and on one single way to accomplish it is unhealthy, destructive, and ultimately stupid. Developing that kind of tunnel vision, saying that "it can only be x or y," blinds one to both alternatives and consequences. In the end, it leads to a "with me or against me" mentality as we saw with the rebellious mages Thrask had allied himself with, and then with Anders himself as he tries to hold your friendship hostage to help him make and plant the bomb.

Jayngfet

2014-05-23, 10:11 PM

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-23, 10:40 PM

I was mostly agreeing with your post there up until this line. Nobody deserves to be made tranquil, especially against their will. Nobody.

Thing is, how else are you keeping them locked up? One could let them choose, of course.

Edit: As mentioned above Psyren has failed to provide a single argument that proves that the terrorism and subsequent war was neccesary, not to mention morally justified. We can all argue with him for an eternity, but it seems clear neither us nor him will understand how the other one(s) morality works. Or objective analysis for that matter, since we cannot even agree that the bombing is "necessary".

Psyren

2014-05-23, 11:00 PM

"We've conscripted you into a war you didn't even want for a cause you might not even have cared about because of people you never even knew. Who cares what you think, or what you wanted? You have to fight now."

It doesn't bother you at all that one person, one deeply flawed person, has plunged the world into war? Not just the mages and templars, but just about all of Thedas?

1) "Didn't want?" You're acting as though every other mage in all of Thedas was a shrinking violet who didn't want things to come to a head, who was content with wearing their yoke indefinitely. That Anders was the only one who had lost friends, lovers and family, and who had had enough. Yet after things kick off we see that the mages are more than willing to go on the offensive now that they know it's win or bust. They are not merely reluctantly defending themselves - they are attacking Orlesian balls and trying to assassinate the Divine herself. And at the end of Asunder, when they have a chance to vote to end the war, they don't. Gonna blame that on Anders too?

It's clear to me that he was not the only one that wanted a revolution - he was merely the first one with the power and opportunity to pull something like this off. Other mages, like Adrian, would have eagerly done the same.

2) Of course it bothers me, but not nearly as much as the status quo was bothering me.

It's clear Psyren that our moral compasses on this matter are pointing to some rather different "Norths." Nothing you have said has convinced me that Anders is in anyway justified, and the more I hear from you, the more I disagree with you. Zealotry and extremism. This focus on one singular goal and on one single way to accomplish it is unhealthy, destructive, and ultimately stupid. Developing that kind of tunnel vision, saying that "it can only be x or y," blinds one to both alternatives and consequences. In the end, it leads to a "with me or against me" mentality as we saw with the rebellious mages Thrask had allied himself with, and then with Anders himself as he tries to hold your friendship hostage to help him make and plant the bomb.

On the contrary, I'm open to alternatives that could have worked. But Bioware wrote the situation in such a way that very little else would have done the trick. Literally my only gripe with what Anders did was that Elthina was not the only person in that building; if she was it would have been nearly perfect.

Not just that, but do you REALLY want this person to be out and free in the world? Knowing that their mind is deteriorating?

"Deteriorating?" He did what he set out to do. The struggle between him and Justice, what little there was, is over. "This is the Justice all mages have awaited." Done. Finito. Fait accompli. What deterioration could you possibly mean?

Thing is, how else are you keeping them locked up?

Let the mages police each other. Execute heinous criminals, like you would with anyone else. The lobotomy serves no purpose except to intimidate the survivors.

"If you really fear us so much, then kill us! Don't pretend that killing everything that makes us human isn't the same thing!" - Adrian, DA: Asunder.

Zevox

2014-05-23, 11:02 PM

Thing is, how else are you keeping them locked up?
With Templar guards, evidently, since that's how it's accomplished in the Circles. Though of course that's not guaranteed inescapable, but then no prison is.

In the particular circumstance of Anders, though, that's not actually practical, since handing him over to the Templars will surely just result in them executing him anyway. So yeah, that's really the only way to deal with him.

Beowulf DW

2014-05-23, 11:46 PM

1) "Didn't want?" You're acting as though every other mage in all of Thedas was a shrinking violet who didn't want things to come to a head, who was content with wearing their yoke indefinitely. That Anders was the only one who had lost friends, lovers and family, and who had had enough. Yet after things kick off we see that the mages are more than willing to go on the offensive now that they know it's win or bust. They are not merely reluctantly defending themselves - they are attacking Orlesian balls and trying to assassinate the Divine herself. And at the end of Asunder, when they have a chance to vote to end the war, they don't. Gonna blame that on Anders too?

It's clear to me that he was not the only one that wanted a revolution - he was merely the first one with the power and opportunity to pull something like this off. Other mages, like Adrian, would have eagerly done the same.

Again, so focused on the mages? I'm referring to the innocent civilians that will likely be recruited as Fireball-fodder. You can't honestly tell me that you don't think the templars are above such things. And what about the psychos like Anders that demand that people choose a side when they'd rather go on living? Taking that choice away from people just shows me once more how arrogant Anders has become.

Jayngfet

2014-05-24, 12:11 AM

"Deteriorating?" He did what he set out to do. The struggle between him and Justice, what little there was, is over. "This is the Justice all mages have awaited." Done. Finito. Fait accompli. What deterioration could you possibly mean?

People don't just go away after meeting one goal. Justice and Anders both existed before the plan and they do after, even if only in corpse form. Justice is a fade spirit used to solving problems at the edge of a blade and now there's a war about to break out.

There is no retirement plan, and Justice explicitly says he won't stop until the Templars and anyone else can't possibly do anything about the mages again, and he's perfectly happy having Anders die in the process. The moment he slipped away he was likley to attack another circle, or else attack the Qun and it's followers, or else keep picking fights he knows he has little chance of surviving and his helpers get stuck dealing with or dying from. So long as mages have any enemies Anders and Justice will attack them, and damn who gets hurt in the way.

This was always his plan. He says this point blank in your presence even before he became vengance. Anders changes over the course of 2 and obviously isn't the same person he was before, and he wasn't really the picture of stability starting out.

We're dealing with two powerful, unstable people who won't stop, ever, unless someone puts them down.

Psyren

2014-05-24, 01:41 AM

So yeah, that's really the only way to deal with him.

Assuming he needs to be "dealt with," i.e. for reasons other than animal vengeance.

Again, so focused on the mages? I'm referring to the innocent civilians that will likely be recruited as Fireball-fodder. You can't honestly tell me that you don't think the templars are above such things.

If the Templars as an organization are indeed willing to stoop to methods like that, then all the more reason to wipe them out of existence entirely, and very likely the Chantry with them if it condones that kind of behavior. You don't wring your hands and wish tyrannies away, you fight them with blood and fire until they break.

And what about the psychos like Anders that demand that people choose a side when they'd rather go on living? Taking that choice away from people just shows me once more how arrogant Anders has become.

What about the innocent mages being murdered and lobotomized while people go on living? Or the templars gradually being turned into stormtrooper lyrium junkies? Anders didn't start this situation, he's just the one willing to finish it.

People don't just go away after meeting one goal. Justice and Anders both existed before the plan and they do after, even if only in corpse form. Justice is a fade spirit used to solving problems at the edge of a blade and now there's a war about to break out.

There is no retirement plan, and Justice explicitly says he won't stop until the Templars and anyone else can't possibly do anything about the mages again, and he's perfectly happy having Anders die in the process. The moment he slipped away he was likley to attack another circle, or else attack the Qun and it's followers, or else keep picking fights he knows he has little chance of surviving and his helpers get stuck dealing with or dying from. So long as mages have any enemies Anders and Justice will attack them, and damn who gets hurt in the way.

This was always his plan. He says this point blank in your presence even before he became vengance. Anders changes over the course of 2 and obviously isn't the same person he was before, and he wasn't really the picture of stability starting out.

We're dealing with two powerful, unstable people who won't stop, ever, unless someone puts them down.

He did stop. And sat with his back to you. He only rejoins the conflict if you allow him to, unless of course you set about trying to slaughter the mages, in which case he's well within his rights to fight you.

And in that latter case, when he does find you again? Not a trace of Justice/Vengeance/whoever. He is calm and perfectly in control. You're trying to justify your perversion of justice by painting a picture that does not exist.

Xondoure

2014-05-24, 02:45 AM

I do not share that viewpoint in the slightest. Trying to stop something and failing is not equivalent to allowing it to continue.

I'm not going to comment on real-world events, since that skirts board rules, and I do not necessarily know the full history behind them. As for Andraste, I have little knowledge of what exactly she did besides lead a war - and as I've already said, a war I'm fine with here, given the cause is just. It's murdering innocents that's the line that I do not believe should ever be crossed.

To quote sir Jorah Mormont: "Have you ever seen a war where innocents didn't die by the thousands?"

Ajadea

2014-05-24, 03:12 AM

Another reason potentially to keep Anders around is that he seems to at least temper Justice slightly. Knifing Anders kills Anders definitely. But it's been proven that Justice can a) possess a corpse and b) hop between bodies. For all we know, stabbing Anders just makes Justice even angrier and harder to track down and control.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-24, 05:32 AM

Wow. I'll respond to the rest of it later, but seriously, wow, this has to be one of the most ridiculous, nonsensical analogies I've ever seen.
"As a punishement you will be sent to a place where you'll continue to do your thing". Applies both to Anders being sent to fight in the war and to the pedophile sent to the kindergarten. I did choose that analogy for the shock value, but the basic principle for both "punishements" is the same.

Now, if you forced him to fight on the Templar's side, than yes, that would be a punishement. Though I doubt they would want that.

...And apparently it was just as bad before the edit too. Truly amazing.
It was almost the same.

Let the mages police each other. Execute heinous criminals, like you would with anyone else. The lobotomy serves no purpose except to intimidate the survivors.
So a mage Hawke would be justified in killing Anders. Works for mine :smalltongue:

Again, so focused on the mages? I'm referring to the innocent civilians that will likely be recruited as Fireball-fodder. You can't honestly tell me that you don't think the templars are above such things
Civilians will also get hurt in the conflict as bystanders - as it happens during wars. And more likely than not when some mages get desperate for supplies (it's not like they could get enough of them before the fight, and what will they do when someone tries to prevent them from taking something?).

He did stop. And sat with his back to you. He only rejoins the conflict if you allow him to, unless of course you set about trying to slaughter the mages, in which case he's well within his rights to fight you.
Didn't his plan include the death of those mages anyway? Hard to imagine Meredith wanting something less after he nukes the chantry, and hard to imagine that they'd win in a city literally ruled by the templars...

Beowulf DW

2014-05-24, 07:45 AM

Assuming he needs to be "dealt with," i.e. for reasons other than animal vengeance.

He's a murderer that is unrepentant and needs to be removed from the population. Killing him is quite possibly the only feasible way of doing this.

And I'd advise against suggesting that we haven't removed Vengeance from the picture. As we've established already, when we kill abominations, they tend to stay dead. There has been no instance of a demon escaping from a corpse and coming back to take revenge on its killer. If that could happen, it probably would have already, either in one of the games or the lore itself.

Zevox

2014-05-24, 08:48 AM

Assuming he needs to be "dealt with," i.e. for reasons other than animal vengeance.
He committed a horrible crime - of course he needs to be held accountable for that. That's one of the basic foundations of civilization itself. You do not simply allow someone to get away with murder.

To quote sir Jorah Mormont: "Have you ever seen a war where innocents didn't die by the thousands?"
Perhaps, but I can't control the actions of every person involved - just as I can't when there isn't a war going on. I can sure as hell call for anyone who crosses that line to be held accountable and appropriately punished, however. Such as Anders.

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-24, 09:38 AM

I'm sorry, but I just can't... get... how anyone would think Anders doesn't deserve severe punishment. Just like I cannot fathom the mindset that defends terrorism. Especially not against innocents.

I know we are just arguing in circles but I am desperately trying to understand the mindset, I guess.

Ajadea

2014-05-24, 10:11 AM

And I'd advise against suggesting that we haven't removed Vengeance from the picture. As we've established already, when we kill abominations, they tend to stay dead. There has been no instance of a demon escaping from a corpse and coming back to take revenge on its killer. If that could happen, it probably would have already, either in one of the games or the lore itself.

The Wraith's Vengeance (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/The_Wraith's_Vengeance) questline doesn't count? You kill the thing four times before it stays dead: normal form, ogre commander, ghostly ogre commander, warriors in the Avvar crypt.

Archpaladin Zousha

2014-05-24, 12:02 PM

Giggling Ghast

2014-05-24, 12:05 PM

The Wraith's Vengeance (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/The_Wraith's_Vengeance) questline doesn't count? You kill the thing four times before it stays dead: normal form, ogre commander, ghostly ogre commander, warriors in the Avvar crypt.

Technically, only three. The ogre commander is just an ogre commander.

Also, he wasn't so much a demon as a blood mage that had transformed himself into an immortal wraith.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-24, 12:08 PM

Who's arguing that? I don't think there's a single person on this board who didn't take the route to kill him after what he did.
Did you miss Psyren's posts?

Archpaladin Zousha

2014-05-24, 12:17 PM

I must have. I didn't realize that was what was being said. :smallconfused:

Lord Raziere

2014-05-24, 04:32 PM

Who's arguing that? I don't think there's a single person on this board who didn't take the route to kill him after what he did.

......

hmm......

I'm trying to remember if I killed Anders or not after what he did.....

but I was on the Mage side.....and I'm like "screw you Templars for suppressing the awesome magic stuff" and I was probably going to face some big boss that I needed all the help I could get for, and he was kind of one of my main mages, so probably not good idea to kill him, since he was good at healing and you don't get rid of your white mage lightly, that only leads to you dying. that and some of the Templars had advocated for this "final solution" thing so....they weren't looking all that good right there....

so I PROBABLY didn't kill him, I even persuaded the elf-anti-mage guy of the party to join my side afterwards for the cause of fighting freedom against slavery.....I'm not one who likes the Chantry much anyways....so....I'm pretty sure I saved all for the Mage side as I possibly could......dunno, my memories a little foggy on the specifics of DA2.....

that and I'm pretty sure I did some quest with Anders before it happened that involved sneaking into the church and him doing something that I didn't see so....I guess I was kind of complicit in him blowing up the Chantry? oh well, in for a penny, in for a dollar....

Edit: yup, let Anders live and persuaded Fenris to join mage side, just needed to check....

ShinyRocks

2014-05-24, 05:15 PM

Just finished my Hypocrite Hawke playthrough. (Mage, sides with Templars, romances Fenris, kills Anders, shuts down Merrill at every opportunity.) It was quite fun.

There was a really interesting conversation between Isabela and Anders - she was saying there's no such thing as Justice (the concept, not the spirit), and says to him 'What if you freed the mages, but killed lots of innocent people. Wouldn't they deserve justice, too?' and he just says 'Yes'. I really do think he expects to die for it. Also, the bit where he asks you to gather the materials for the 'potion', and says 'Just combine the ingredients and boom! Justice and I are free.' Sneaky foreshadowing writers! Boom indeed.

First playthrough, I didn't kill him. I really don't want to get into the debate, because it's so circular, but my logic was basically 'redeem yourself' rather than 'you must be punished'. Also I'd romanced him. But that's my real-world approach. Redemption/rehabilitation is more important than punishment.

Perhaps I was just paying more attention this time, but I actually got the 'this conflict is inevitable' a lot more this time round. I still think that they shouldn't have built up your choices so much, given that their whole aim was to say 'you can't change things no matter what you do'. But I kind of like what they were aiming for; they just didn't sell it properly.

Jayngfet

2014-05-24, 05:17 PM

......

hmm......

I'm trying to remember if I killed Anders or not after what he did.....

but I was on the Mage side.....and I'm like "screw you Templars for suppressing the awesome magic stuff" and I was probably going to face some big boss that I needed all the help I could get for, and he was kind of one of my main mages, so probably not good idea to kill him, since he was good at healing and you don't get rid of your white mage lightly, that only leads to you dying. that and some of the Templars had advocated for this "final solution" thing so....they weren't looking all that good right there....

so I PROBABLY didn't kill him, I even persuaded the elf-anti-mage guy of the party to join my side afterwards for the cause of fighting freedom against slavery.....I'm not one who likes the Chantry much anyways....so....I'm pretty sure I saved all for the Mage side as I possibly could......dunno, my memories a little foggy on the specifics of DA2.....

that and I'm pretty sure I did some quest with Anders before it happened that involved sneaking into the church and him doing something that I didn't see so....I guess I was kind of complicit in him blowing up the Chantry? oh well, in for a penny, in for a dollar....

Edit: yup, let Anders live and persuaded Fenris to join mage side, just needed to check....

Don't you get Bethany back at that point anyway?

As far as I'm concerned I have a much better white mage that isn't insane to replace him, so off with his head.

Beowulf DW

2014-05-24, 05:42 PM

The Wraith's Vengeance (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/The_Wraith's_Vengeance) questline doesn't count? You kill the thing four times before it stays dead: normal form, ogre commander, ghostly ogre commander, warriors in the Avvar crypt.

I admit that I forgot about that one, but it's one specimen in...what? Hundreds that we've encountered over the course of the games?

Technically, only three. The ogre commander is just an ogre commander.

Also, he wasn't so much a demon as a blood mage that had transformed himself into an immortal wraith.

Well, now I'm not sure what to think.

Besides this instance, we've seen plenty of examples where killing a demon in its various forms, even when the demon is one of the Forbidden Ones, results in the demon's permanent destruction, with the exceptions seeming to be the ones smart enough to have contingencies in place. And once those contingencies run out, they still die.

Giggling Ghast

2014-05-24, 08:00 PM

Besides this instance, we've seen plenty of examples where killing a demon in its various forms, even when the demon is one of the Forbidden Ones, results in the demon's permanent destruction, with the exceptions seeming to be the ones smart enough to have contingencies in place. And once those contingencies run out, they still die.

This is a bit vague. It's suggested that at least some slain demons are sent back to the Fade and are reduced to a wisp, or simply reduced in power. That's why sealing demons away in relics like the Black Vials seems to be a popular option.

In any case, the spirit from the Wraith's Vengeance was kind of a special case, because he specifically planned to send the bodies of the dead against his Avaar kin.

"Kiveal, nothing will hold me. These walls will rot before I expire. When they do, I shall defame your gods, call your mortal shells to serve me, and hunt down every last one of your kinsmen, Avvar and dwarf."

Rodin

2014-05-24, 08:13 PM

I believe my Rogue Hawke let Anders live, but that was really because she was the female equivalent of Belkar. Chick would stab you for a copper piece, and really didn't care about the Mage/Templar conflict - she was in it for the money all the way. There wasn't any reward offered for shanking Anders, and he was an "in" to potentially profitable future ventures, so why not let him tag along?

ScrambledBrains

2014-05-24, 09:25 PM

I believe my Rogue Hawke let Anders live, but that was really because she was the female equivalent of Belkar.

This line amuses me because I've just made my own female Rogue Hawke...whose name is Haley. And she's focusing on Archery. :smallbiggrin:

Psyren

2014-05-26, 03:07 AM

*waves hello*

"As a punishement you will be sent to a place where you'll continue to do your thing". Applies both to Anders being sent to fight in the war and to the pedophile sent to the kindergarten. I did choose that analogy for the shock value, but the basic principle for both "punishements" is the same.

Now, if you forced him to fight on the Templar's side, than yes, that would be a punishement. Though I doubt they would want that.

This is not even close to true. Whatever you think of his methods, Anders' goal was noble - to free the mages from bondage - whereas a pedophile's goal is simply carnal exploitation. Seeing the goal of liberation through to the end and therefore making sure that the innocents sacrificed didn't die in vain is the only way I could see doing them, and the mages still doing battle, justice.

As for forcing him to fight for the Templars, why would I possibly want to help them? They are part of the problem.

So a mage Hawke would be justified in killing Anders. Works for mine :smalltongue:

He's a murderer that is unrepentant and needs to be removed from the population. Killing him is quite possibly the only feasible way of doing this.

He committed a horrible crime - of course he needs to be held accountable for that. That's one of the basic foundations of civilization itself. You do not simply allow someone to get away with murder.

If ever I were to judge and kill Anders for what he had done, it would be after the war when the mages are free and he has had the chance to fight on their behalf against the Templars as hard as he could. Let them then stand in judgment of their brother and determine whether his actions were necessary, or he went too far. And if that entails the risk that he could escape (despite showing no inclination to do so) or cause further destruction during the war (war is hell), then so be it.

Didn't his plan include the death of those mages anyway? Hard to imagine Meredith wanting something less after he nukes the chantry, and hard to imagine that they'd win in a city literally ruled by the templars...

His plan depended on the destruction of their Circle, to show the world that such constructs were now useless. The mages inside would be free to carve a path to liberty and, if possible, flee it. It's not like they have any pressing need to stay in Kirkwall, or leave their phylacteries intact for that matter.

I'm sorry, but I just can't... get... how anyone would think Anders doesn't deserve severe punishment. Just like I cannot fathom the mindset that defends terrorism. Especially not against innocents.

I know we are just arguing in circles but I am desperately trying to understand the mindset, I guess.

Because he's the only one who gives enough of a damn about the mages to truly do something about their situation. Because his absorption of a spirit gives him the power he needs to be a champion for their cause. Because butchering him right then and there will not only do absolutely nothing for the mages, it will increase the chances that they lose the coming war and that those who died in that Chantry and the subsequent slaughter died for no reason. And finally, because both Meredith and Orsino wanted me to do it. I have no problem spitting in both of their eyes.

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-26, 03:24 AM

Because he's the only one who gives enough of a damn about the mages to truly do something about their situation. Because his absorption of a spirit gives him the power he needs to be a champion for their cause. Because butchering him right then and there will not only do absolutely nothing for the mages, it will increase the chances that they lose the coming war and that those who died in that Chantry and the subsequent slaughter died for no reason. And finally, because both Meredith and Orsino wanted me to do it. I have no problem spitting in both of their eyes.

1. This is a lie. He uses them, to the point of murdering them, to further HIS cause. There is no "Their" here. He might hate their situation, but to argue that he cares about them is an outright lie. He only sees them as symbols and doesn't care about them as living beings at all. He merely see them as tools to further HIS goals "on their behalf".
In short, Anders is a realistically portrayed political extremist and terrorist, he acts EXACTLY like terrorists do in the real world, with the same hollow justification and the same illusion of heroism.

2. Butchering Dispensing justice on him (fixed it for you) right now is the only viable option, since he otherwise would escape. And it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT if it "does something for the mages" or not.

3. Completely irrelevant.

Divayth Fyr

2014-05-26, 07:41 AM

As for forcing him to fight for the Templars, why would I possibly want to help them? They are part of the problem.
Because the talk was about a punishement for him, not giving him a medal, pat on the back and saying "good job, do your thing"

If ever I were to judge and kill Anders for what he had done, it would be after the war when the mages are free and he has had the chance to fight on their behalf against the Templars as hard as he could. Let them then stand in judgment of their brother and determine whether his actions were necessary, or he went too far. And if that entails the risk that he could escape (despite showing no inclination to do so) or cause further destruction during the war (war is hell), then so be it.
And what would give them the authority to judge Anders' actions? If Hawke doesn't have it, neither would the mages.

His plan depended on the destruction of their Circle, to show the world that such constructs were now useless. The mages inside would be free to carve a path to liberty and, if possible, flee it. It's not like they have any pressing need to stay in Kirkwall, or leave their phylacteries intact for that matter.
How many would survive and be able to flee? Going with everything we could see I'd say very, very few. Which was to be expected (unlike Meredith bringing out her magical blade).

And finally, because both Meredith and Orsino wanted me to do it. I have no problem spitting in both of their eyes.
I forgot, who was talking about petty vengeance... :smalltongue:

1. This is a lie. He uses them, to the point of murdering them, to further HIS cause.
Anders is a Thedas Reaper - he saves mages by killing them, just like the Reapers save organics by killing them. :smallbiggrin:

Zevox

2014-05-26, 09:31 AM

If ever I were to judge and kill Anders for what he had done, it would be after the war when the mages are free and he has had the chance to fight on their behalf against the Templars as hard as he could. Let them then stand in judgment of their brother and determine whether his actions were necessary, or he went too far. And if that entails the risk that he could escape (despite showing no inclination to do so) or cause further destruction during the war (war is hell), then so be it.
Yes, you clearly intend for him to get objective, rational judges, there. Especially given you're outright saying that whether he's punished for actions should depend more on whether these people feel they were "necessary," not on whether he did it and on whether it was a heinous crime for which literally anyone in any society would be sentenced to either life imprisonment or death.

Beowulf DW

2014-05-26, 10:52 AM

If we strip things down to their bare bones, it seems to me that we're debating justification, necessity, and whether these two are one and the same.

Psyren

2014-05-26, 12:00 PM

1. This is a lie. He uses them, to the point of murdering them, to further HIS cause. There is no "Their" here. He might hate their situation, but to argue that he cares about them is an outright lie. He only sees them as symbols and doesn't care about them as living beings at all. He merely see them as tools to further HIS goals "on their behalf".
In short, Anders is a realistically portrayed political extremist and terrorist, he acts EXACTLY like terrorists do in the real world, with the same hollow justification and the same illusion of heroism.

"His cause?" So none of the Circles shared it? Must be why they all lay down arms immediately after the incident in Kirkwall to convince the Chantry they are no threat.

Oh wait, they don't do that, no matter which side wins? Then what could you possibly be on about?

2. Butchering Dispensing justice on him (fixed it for you) right now is the only viable option, since he otherwise would escape.

You're right, he does escape if you let him go. Oh wait, no, he doesn't do that either! He specifically goes back to the Gallows instead of fleeing - either to confront you, knowing he'll die in the process (if you side with the templars) or to rejoin you (if you side with the mages.) Clearly a self-interested fugitive there who only cares about his own survival.

And it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT if it "does something for the mages" or not.

3. Completely irrelevant.

Repeatedly crowing how COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT it is doesn't make it so. Andraste's atrocities were subsumed by history, swallowed up into the good she had done for slaves all across Thedas. She is now viewed as a saint, her march as a necessity. Even if history is harsher on Anders himself, if the mages win their freedom then his act of revolution that started it all will rightfully not be.

Yes, you clearly intend for him to get objective, rational judges, there. Especially given you're outright saying that whether he's punished for actions should depend more on whether these people feel they were "necessary," not on whether he did it and on whether it was a heinous crime for which literally anyone in any society would be sentenced to either life imprisonment or death.

Who could possibly be "objective and rational" in circumstances like these? Certainly not the mages, nor anyone from the Chantry, nor indeed Hawke himself/herself, who is inextricably tied to the former one way or another. So since objectivity and rationality mean so much to you, who on earth are you proposing to judge him at that moment? We can't even defer to Aveline, who is either (a) already deferring to you, or (b) has tossed aside her blade and written off the whole mess.

And yes, the good that resulted is exactly what it should depend on. Spartacus, William Wallace, Joan of Arc, George Washington, and many others - none of these people were perfect and all performed actions that harmed innocents, but are you honestly saying things would have been better had they not acted?

Because the talk was about a punishement for him, not giving him a medal, pat on the back and saying "good job, do your thing"

I don't see how forcing him to see through the war he started counts as a "pat on the back." He must dedicate his life to help the mages win or die trying, and furthermore keep that spirit of his in check. And my Hawke, who has slain abominations beyond count and even reined in Justice before, is the best person to ensure that he stays himself to do it. You act like that is a desirable position for anyone to be put in, that it is all upside for Anders and only Anders. You act like that decision won't save many, many innocent lives, far more than would be saved by simply shanking him in the street. His healing abilities alone are at least on par with Wynne's; even if you force him to do only that for the rest of the war, he has the potential to save dozens if not hundreds.

And what would give them the authority to judge Anders' actions? If Hawke doesn't have it, neither would the mages.

Being the ones he was attempting to liberate in the first place, who better to judge his success and methods after the fact? And If the templars win, he should be dead anyway.

How many would survive and be able to flee? Going with everything we could see I'd say very, very few. Which was to be expected (unlike Meredith bringing out her magical blade).

Varric specifically tells Cassandra "many were saved," provided Hawke sided with the mages. If Hawke sides with the templars then yes, most of the Kirkwall mages were wiped out, which is to be expected.

I forgot, who was talking about petty vengeance... :smalltongue:

How does "not committing murder just because I'm told to" count as "petty vengeance?" :smallconfused:

Anders is a Thedas Reaper - he saves mages by killing them, just like the Reapers save organics by killing them. :smallbiggrin:

So if anyone dies during a revolution their side has lost? Must be news to all the Tevinter slaves liberated at the end of Andraste's march.

Avilan the Grey

2014-05-26, 03:44 PM

"His cause?" So none of the Circles shared it? Must be why they all lay down arms immediately after the incident in Kirkwall to convince the Chantry they are no threat.

Oh wait, they don't do that, no matter which side wins? Then what could you possibly be on about?

You're right, he does escape if you let him go. Oh wait, no, he doesn't do that either! He specifically goes back to the Gallows instead of fleeing - either to confront you, knowing he'll die in the process (if you side with the templars) or to rejoin you (if you side with the mages.) Clearly a self-interested fugitive there who only cares about his own survival.

Repeatedly crowing how COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT it is doesn't make it so. Andraste's atrocities were subsumed by history, swallowed up into the good she had done for slaves all across Thedas. She is now viewed as a saint, her march as a necessity. Even if history is harsher on Anders himself, if the mages win their freedom then his act of revolution that started it all will rightfully not be.

Yes, his cause. You can try to justify his actions, it still doesn't fly. He is a terrorist. He deserves nothing.

You can pretend to know what the future is, it still doesn't matter. You can only judge with the present and the past. If Andraste had been captured the first week of her revolution, do you think they would have spared her because "in the future she will be redeemed?"
No, it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. If a person robs a bank, kill half the people there and then give the money to the poor, should we spare him? No. The fact that he gave the money to the poor is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

As for running: You don't know he won't run. Or kill more people. Or both.

Psyren

2014-05-26, 04:37 PM

Yes, his cause. You can try to justify his actions, it still doesn't fly. He is a terrorist. He deserves nothing.

You can pretend to know what the future is, it still doesn't matter. You can only judge with the present and the past. If Andraste had been captured the first week of her revolution, do you think they would have spared her because "in the future she will be redeemed?"
No, it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. If a person robs a bank, kill half the people there and then give the money to the poor, should we spare him? No. The fact that he gave the money to the poor is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

As for running: You don't know he won't run. Or kill more people. Or both.

Andraste was also a "terrorist." Which is an emotionally-charged word that does nothing but close off any discussion, like "nazi."

If Andraste were caught, they would have killed her, yes - but not so much for what she had done, as for what she was going to do. i.e. Challenge Tevinter's entrenched power base. She was the driving symbol of her rebellion.
Anders is not - rather it was the fate of the Kirkwall Circle, unjustly implicated for Anders' own actions, that became the rallying cry for the others to follow.

And your analogy fails too. It is not "rob a bank and kill the people there to give money to the poor." A better analogy would be "blow up a research station developing a deadly virus, along with some unaware staff who are also inside, to save the greater number of lives outside of it." The idea is that you are committing the smaller sacrifice to spare the greater from imminent harm/death, which is the basis of the Trolley Problem I linked earlier. Do nothing and more people die.

As for running - if he planned to do that he would have done so. There was more than enough chaos (both the explosion itself, and the battle immediately following your choice of a side) for him to slip away under, if that were truly his goal. Your stance does not follow.

Dienekes

2014-05-26, 05:46 PM

And your analogy fails too. It is not "rob a bank and kill the people there to give money to the poor." A better analogy would be "blow up a research station developing a deadly virus, along with some unaware staff who are also inside, to save the greater number of lives outside of it." The idea is that you are committing the smaller sacrifice to spare the greater from imminent harm/death, which is the basis of the Trolley Problem I linked earlier. Do nothing and more people die.

Actually, I believe Anders plan is to cause a scandal to get the whole shebang started. Using your analogy it'd be closer to say Anders blew up a research station in order to release the deadly virus, because he didn't like the methods that were currently being used to contain the virus.

Psyren

2014-05-26, 06:13 PM

Actually, I believe Anders plan is to cause a scandal to get the whole shebang started. Using your analogy it'd be closer to say Anders blew up a research station in order to release the deadly virus, because he didn't like the methods that were currently being used to contain the virus.

This doesn't work either, because the "virus" in your analogy is people, and they are currently being tormented, confined, slaughtered and lobotomized. People have rights and viruses do not.

Unless you don't think mages are people, in which case hey! We've found the root source of our disagreement at last!

Dienekes

2014-05-26, 06:23 PM

This doesn't work either, because the "virus" in your analogy is people, and they are currently being tormented, confined, slaughtered and lobotomized. People have rights and viruses do not.

Unless you don't think mages are people, in which case hey! We've found the root source of our disagreement at last!

Nah my comparison was Templar as the destructive virus that Anders just sicced on the mages after destroying the people who were keeping them in check.

Psyren

2014-05-26, 06:27 PM

Nah my comparison was Templar as the destructive virus that Anders just sicced on the mages after destroying the people who were keeping them in check.

The Chantry were keeping the Templars in check? After the wonderful job they did with Alrik and Meredith?

They were already "sicced on the mages." It may not have been as dramatic/overt as an Annullment, but the mages were dying all the same.

Dienekes

2014-05-26, 07:31 PM

The Chantry were keeping the Templars in check? After the wonderful job they did with Alrik and Meredith?

They were already "sicced on the mages." It may not have been as dramatic/overt as an Annullment, but the mages were dying all the same.

Alrik was a lunatic sociopath. Yes, he was a monster and a templar, but there are corrupt and even murderous cops today. You don't place the blame for them at the feet of the mayor, he doesn't really know. As for Meredith, I remember the chantry telling her to not do anything destructive several times. Could she have done more, of yes, certainly. No arguments there. But that doesn't change the fact that Ander's was the one whose plan was to get Meredith to go attempt to murder all the mages. That was his goal, to create a mess that gets many of the mages killed. It's psychotic.

Beowulf DW

2014-05-26, 08:48 PM

The Chantry were keeping the Templars in check? After the wonderful job they did with Alrik and Meredith?

They were already "sicced on the mages." It may not have been as dramatic/overt as an Annullment, but the mages were dying all the same.

I do remember one source that mentioned that the Chantry put a leash on the Inquisition (which would later become the Templars) because at least some of them had a habit of executing mages on sight.

Zevox

2014-05-26, 09:33 PM

Who could possibly be "objective and rational" in circumstances like these? Certainly not the mages, nor anyone from the Chantry, nor indeed Hawke himself/herself, who is inextricably tied to the former one way or another. So since objectivity and rationality mean so much to you, who on earth are you proposing to judge him at that moment? We can't even defer to Aveline, who is either (a) already deferring to you, or (b) has tossed aside her blade and written off the whole mess.
My point was that you were clearly setting up your circumstance for actually trying him to be as biased towards letting him get away unpunished as possible, both by waiting until after the war was concluded and by having those judging him be Mages who would presumably have benefited from the war that he started (since otherwise he wouldn't be being judged by Mages). So you are giving me no reason to believe that you're at all interested in him being held accountable for his actions.

And yes, the good that resulted is exactly what it should depend on.
No, it should not. Whatever may come of the war that resulted from his actions, his actions were not merely to start that war, but to murder a great number of innocent people. Unless you wish to make the argument that the basic concept that murder is a crime that should be harshly punished is incorrect, I don't see how the prospect that Anders should be punished for that act can even be up for debate.

Spartacus, William Wallace, Joan of Arc, George Washington, and many others - none of these people were perfect and all performed actions that harmed innocents, but are you honestly saying things would have been better had they not acted?
My response was going to be to ask you to name exact incidents for us to discuss rather than being so broad and vague, but I suppose we can't really do that, can we? So to address the point more broadly: if you're just referring to the general effects of warfare, then no, I am not. I do not expect that the leaders of a war can fully prevent those serving under them, or especially their adversaries, from harming innocents - though I would certainly hope they would hold them accountable wherever possible. If you're thinking of more specific incidents of those people personally doing something remotely comparable to what Anders did, there is every possibility I would indeed condemn those.