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

[Psyren]

Spoiler: @ Avilan

Show

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.

Spoiler: @ Zevox

Show

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?

Spoiler: @ karpik777

Show

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...

How does "not committing murder just because I'm told to" count as "petty vengeance?"

Anders is a Thedas Reaper - he saves mages by killing them, just like the Reapers save organics by killing them.

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]

Spoiler: @ Avilan

Show

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Psyren]

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.

I would expect the chief of police to either resign or announce stricter policing within his/her own ranks to prevent such things from happening again. And the police do have something in place to root out such offenders, it's called Internal Affairs - a department that I have seen no evidence of within the Templars.

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.

Given that those people are the current ones being oppressed, murdered and mutilated, then I don't particularly care that their liberation might make them biased in his favor. Both they and he would have earned a reprieve at that point. I would like it if some more moderate remnant of the Templars would survive to sit in Anders' judgment at that point too, but given that they are currently the oppressors I'm not overly concerned whether they have a voice or not, any more than I would be concerned whether former SS members had a say in the Nuremberg proceedings.

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.

It depends on what you'd consider harsh punishment. Killing him in particular I see as a greater loss than his potential contributions to the cause. (Elthina on the other hand I consider to be a waste of oxygen.)

[Dienekes]

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?

Let's go through these. Spartacus, was the leader of an uprising that the slaves chose to be a part of. He did not set up a situation where the slaves would join him or be killed by himself. It was the work of a large body of slaves who then chose him as a leader, probably because he had military experience.

Considering his actions ended up getting most who served under him killed, seemed to have no real goals outside of loot, pillage, and rape their way across Italy, including targeting fellow slaves (of which he was planning to abandon most of his army to Pompey and Crassus and sail away), yes, I would say the world probably would have been better without his actions. We'd have lost a great film though, which is sad.

Joan of Arc, grew up in a war torn country. War was thrust upon her and she took charge and helped defend her people and her kingdom. I really don't see how anything she does is comparable to Anders. Nor do I remember any atrocities committed by her, on the contrary, if she was more ruthless she probably would have made faster military gains.

William Wallace, was a knight who had disputed claims over territory. A group of nobles arguing with another group of nobles getting a bunch of people killed in the process. Wounded up getting himself killed as well. The movie is romanticized nonsense (also enjoyable though). Was it better for him? I don't know, the reason the English got involved in the first place was because the Scottish nobility were incompetent, fighting each other, and getting a lot of people killed in the process. William Wallace himself fought people, got a lot of people killed in the process, saw no real gain for the Scottish commoners. So, ehh?

George Washington, didn't start the rebellion. Was elected to lead it because of prior military experience. Didn't force people to fight, in fact went out of his way to not conflict with neutral parties. I don't see much of a comparison between him and Anders.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Most of what I know about Spartacus and that revolt comes from documentaries of questionable accuracy, but I was led to believe that part of the reason things went bad for them was because Spartacus was cajoled by his own forces into pushing towards Rome and continuing to fight, instead of escaping into Gaul as per their original plan.

[Dienekes]

Most of what I know about Spartacus and that revolt comes from documentaries of questionable accuracy, but I was led to believe that part of the reason things went bad for them was because Spartacus was cajoled by his own forces into pushing towards Rome and continuing to fight, instead of escaping into Gaul as per their original plan.

We don't actually have a document from inside the Spartacus' inner circle. What we do know is the raping and pillaging thing. The army itself seemed to move back and forth across Italy with no real purpose. There was a time when it seemed that maybe it could have been heading toward Rome, maybe. But most scholars I know of say that was probably just the fears of the Romans themselves interpreting the seemingly random movements. And we have it from numerous records that Spartacus tried to buy passage for himself and 2000 men (from his army of up to 70,000, though that number may have been exaggerated) to flee when Pompey and Crassus finally had the army pretty much pinned down.

The man wasn't a hero. But it is fun to make a story of the trying to win his freedoms if you smooth over his actions, change his motivations, and have him go down fighting the good fight.

[Zevox]

Given that those people are the current ones being oppressed, murdered and mutilated, then I don't particularly care that their liberation might make them biased in his favor. Both they and he would have earned a reprieve at that point.

Again, I'm getting the distinct impression that all you're interested in here is that he not be punished because you sympathize with his motivations.

It depends on what you'd consider harsh punishment. Killing him in particular I see as a greater loss than his potential contributions to the cause.

Death or life imprisonment is typically considered the appropriate punishment for even one murder. For what Anders did, I don't see how anything less than one of those two could suffice. Either way, he won't be contributing to the war, but that's the consequences of his actions. Something even he himself accepts.

@ Dienekes - Careful there. Discussing the history of real-world wars tends to hit too closely to our prohibition on political discussions for the mods' comfort.

[Jayngfet]

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!

Those people, as individuals, are utterly irrelevant.

Justice makes his entire view, of well, justice, clear in Awakening. Individuals don't matter, he only thinks of Mages as a group. Just like he only thinks of Humans as a group and Elves as another and Dwarves as another. An actual person doesn't matter unless they're directly in front of him, and even then their lives are meaningless to him. This is made clear every time if you listen to any of his conversations with a mage.

[Psyren]

Let's go through these.

Let's not.

Again, I'm getting the distinct impression that all you're interested in here is that he not be punished because you sympathize with his motivations.

That's certainly part of it, but the larger part is the good he can still do. A powerful mage who is experienced at fighting Templars and Abominations alike, who is again at least as skilled a healer as Wynne. (They are, both of them, the only mages alive to have healed Tranquility, in however limited fashion.) Stabbing him in the street, even if I agreed with the death penalty without it preventing imminent harm (I don't) would still be inordinately wasteful in my eyes.

Death or life imprisonment is typically considered the appropriate punishment for even one murder. For what Anders did, I don't see how anything less than one of those two could suffice. Either way, he won't be contributing to the war, but that's the consequences of his actions. Something even he himself accepts.

There are plenty of circumstances where people kill without being sentenced to either. An example would be you stabbing him in the back at either Meredith or Orsino's request, neither of whom is an elected official of the City of Kirkwall. Another example would be you slaughtering either mages or templars en masse immediately following that decision.

Those people, as individuals, are utterly irrelevant.

Justice makes his entire view, of well, justice, clear in Awakening. Individuals don't matter, he only thinks of Mages as a group. Just like he only thinks of Humans as a group and Elves as another and Dwarves as another. An actual person doesn't matter unless they're directly in front of him, and even then their lives are meaningless to him. This is made clear every time if you listen to any of his conversations with a mage.

Given that they are being oppressed as a group, i.e. systematically brutalized for the one attribute they have in common regardless of their individual backgrounds, beliefs or desires, I'm not sure what you're attempting to get at here. Yes, he wants to liberate mages as a whole, and yes, it is mages as a whole that need liberating.

[Happy Gravity]

Let's not.

Don't be ridiculous. You brought those people up as an example, or perhaps as a comparison, and he shot you down. Concede the point or contest it, don't try to skitter away without acknowledging it.

/peanutgallery

[Avilan the Grey]

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.

"Emotionally charged word"... Indeed. You just don't want to admit to yourself that is what he is. He is a textbook case. He could work as an illustration in an IRL encyclopedia for the word "Terrorist".
He is NOT a guerilla leader. He is NOT a resistance fighter. He IS a terrorist, and a revolutionary. But being a revolutionary does not automatically make you a terrorist.

It is a little ironic that you use Andraste to to justify Anders, since she is the one that led a war to CREATE the templars. If it wasn't for her war, Mages would be the ruling class or at least free to do what they wanted. But whatever.
Anyway, as far as I remember Andraste never slaughtered civilians to provoke a reaction from her enemies.

It depends on what you'd consider harsh punishment. Killing him in particular I see as a greater loss than his potential contributions to the cause.

Here you go again. The "Cause" is irrelevant. Seriously. IRRELEVANT. Pre-emptive murder does not become self-defence just because you want it to be. Especially not when the people you murder are not even remotely connected to the people you "defend" yourself from.

Let's not.

Why not? is it because you realize after the reply above that none of these people fit as an example of what Ander's have done? You are backtracking very quickly here.

[Jayngfet]

Given that they are being oppressed as a group, i.e. systematically brutalized for the one attribute they have in common regardless of their individual backgrounds, beliefs or desires, I'm not sure what you're attempting to get at here. Yes, he wants to liberate mages as a whole, and yes, it is mages as a whole that need liberating.

...by killing as many as he liberates.

Killing innnocents is never justified. This is why there are treaties and conventions written at length about it. It's something you do not do, ever. By killing innocents and dragging more into the war, Anders loses any and all moral high ground he had.

Not to mention that you're downplaying that "one attribute". We see through the game several mages transform into abominations, or else barely hold on through willpower. Every single mage gone wrong is dozens of lives ended or ruined forever. Hell, how many people did Conner kill in Origins, without meaning to? Five? Ten? A dozen? More? How many of them died in front of you, all of them sworn to protect him before it came to this?

Mages aren't exactly your standard minority. Hell, mages aren't even the X-Men. Mages are ticking time bombs who can and will slaughter without discrimination if a demon gets ahold one way or another. That's not to say they will, since obviously Bethany is totally fine and so are plenty of others, but no alternatives ever provide consistent and widespread results.

What Merideth and her cronies do is over the line, this is beyond a doubt, but it was never about targetting Merideth. It was about targeting innocents to provoke Merideth. If Anders wanted her dealt with he could have tried something at any time, but that was never his goal.

"Emotionally charged word"... Indeed. You just don't want to admit to yourself that is what he is. He is a textbook case. He could work as an illustration in an IRL encyclopedia for the word "Terrorist".
He is NOT a guerilla leader. He is NOT a resistance fighter. He IS a terrorist, and a revolutionary. But being a revolutionary does not automatically make you a terrorist.

Not to mention that, again, most revolutions fail long before their goals are accomplished, and one at this scale can't last. They're lucky to have made it to a standstill but they have no method of holding power and no experience governing. When you're at war with every single global power you either topple them or lose your goal of freeing every circle.

How the hell are mages gonna handle it once a pro-templar monarch dies? Do they just hand him over to a vengeful government? To an incompetent sympathiser? Do the work themselves with no experience or training? What about the people living there? Do they suddenly support the templars even harder under a mage userper and their probable opression? Will they deal with gurella fighting in the streets of the city they just took?

There is literally no scenario or combination of moves that results in a meaningful mage victory. They have have at best even odds of it, and they can't keep a single thing from it. This is a situation akin to the french revolution, wherein you depose one tyrant, screw it up and get a bunch of innocent people killed to satisfy your ego, then get a bunch more killed out of incompetence, before another oppressor rolls in because you suck at running things.

[Psyren]

"Emotionally charged word"... Indeed. You just don't want to admit to yourself that is what he is. He is a textbook case. He could work as an illustration in an IRL encyclopedia for the word "Terrorist".
He is NOT a guerilla leader. He is NOT a resistance fighter. He IS a terrorist, and a revolutionary. But being a revolutionary does not automatically make you a terrorist.

It's just a label, and as I noted, one that could be applied to many figures both in Thedas and outside of it while they were doing the thing(s) they are notable for. It is in no way a deterrent to my support.

It is a little ironic that you use Andraste to to justify Anders, since she is the one that led a war to CREATE the templars. If it wasn't for her war, Mages would be the ruling class or at least free to do what they wanted. But whatever.

Neither Anders nor indeed the entire Libertarian, Aequetarian and especially Isolationist Colleges want another mage ruling class. Nor did Andraste demand the creation of the Circles; that was the Chantry interpreting her words ("Magic must serve man," etc.) to justify their own ends.

Anyway, as far as I remember Andraste never slaughtered civilians to provoke a reaction from her enemies.

For starters, I saw no "civilians" caught in that blast. In the cutscene I saw fleeing Templars, and Elthina herself, neither of whom are civilians.
But even if there were indeed civilians in there, it was not their deaths that were instrumental in pushing Meredith over the edge. Indeed, Meredith mentions no one but Elthina herself and the destruction of the Chantry (a building) - those "civilians" did not appear to cross her mind for even an instant. I've already acknowledged that, could Anders have blown up that building and taken out no one but Elthina, I would have been fully on board with that.

Besides which, we have no details on whether Andraste did or did not in fact hurt any noncombatants directly. Certainly she did so indirectly, with her rampaging barbarian armies (that were no doubt very courteous and gentle to the non-magisters they came across I'm sure), and if she was merely a supermage as many suspect, directly is easily possible to imagine as well.

Here you go again. The "Cause" is irrelevant. Seriously. IRRELEVANT. Pre-emptive murder does not become self-defence just because you want it to be. Especially not when the people you murder are not even remotely connected to the people you "defend" yourself from.

The self-defense standard also generally applies to saving someone else from imminent harm. You yourself do not have to be in peril to invoke it, if your actions are saving the life of someone else (or someones.)

Why not? is it because you realize after the reply above that none of these people fit as an example of what Ander's have done? You are backtracking very quickly here.

Not backtracking - rather, it's because refuting the very obvious errors in that screed would require running afoul of the rules as Zevox mentioned. Start a thread on another board if you like.

Don't be ridiculous. You brought those people up as an example, or perhaps as a comparison, and he shot you down. Concede the point or contest it, don't try to skitter away without acknowledging it.

/peanutgallery

Mmm, peanuts. *gets snack*

[Jayngfet]

It's just a label, and as I noted, one that could be applied to many figures both in Thedas and outside of it while they were doing the thing(s) they are notable for. It is in no way a deterrent to my support.

Labels describe things. Terrorists use violence and fear to achieve political goals, which Anders does. He's not a Gurella fighter, since he doesn't do any Gurella Warfare. He's not a leader of any sort, since he doesn't lead anyone. He's not a strategist, because he had no strategy beyond killing a bunch of people. I mean really, if you let him live even he'll admit he didn't expect it to be that bad.

He's a fool and a coward. He expected to blow things up and either die or run before the consequences came to him. Just like he always runs away when the pressure mounts. Because that's who he is, a self serving coward who can't plan ahead.

Mmm, peanuts. *gets snack*

What a lovely way to deflect a statement.

[Psyren]

Labels describe things. Terrorists use violence and fear to achieve political goals, which Anders does. He's not a Gurella fighter, since he doesn't do any Gurella Warfare. He's not a leader of any sort, since he doesn't lead anyone. He's not a strategist, because he had no strategy beyond killing a bunch of people. I mean really, if you let him live even he'll admit he didn't expect it to be that bad.

You're wrong again. He led the entire Mage Underground; he arranged for the escape of apostates, controlled supply lines, even coordinated jobs for them. Before that, he quickly made a name for himself in his clinic, and was well-known to the whole Ferelden support network, which is how you found him in the first place. And I heard nothing about him underestimating how bad it would be - when I listen to him in the Gallows, he instead waxes hopeful about how 10 or 100 years from now two mages can fall in love without Templars to tear them apart. It's a noble goal, worth fighting for, and that dream will inflame any number of other revolutionary mages who want the same thing.

He's a fool and a coward.

He's a warrior and a hero.

What a lovely way to deflect a statement.

What "deflection?" I already responded to it in the sentence directly above that one, so I decided to then be whimsical rather than repeat myself. Don't take this so seriously...

[Avilan the Grey]

It's just a label, and as I noted, one that could be applied to many figures both in Thedas and outside of it while they were doing the thing(s) they are notable for. It is in no way a deterrent to my support.

(Snip)

Besides which, we have no details on whether Andraste did or did not in fact hurt any noncombatants directly. Certainly she did so indirectly, with her rampaging barbarian armies (that were no doubt very courteous and gentle to the non-magisters they came across I'm sure), and if she was merely a supermage as many suspect, directly is easily possible to imagine as well.

(snip)

The self-defense standard also generally applies to saving someone else from imminent harm. You yourself do not have to be in peril to invoke it, if your actions are saving the life of someone else (or someones.)

Civilians dies in wars. That does not make army leaders terrorists. As for "just a label"... there's a reason for labels. There is also a reason why there are DIFFERENT labels. There is an agreed upon difference between a freedom fighter, a guerilla leader, a revolutionary, a resistance leader and a terrorist. The obvious one of course is that terrorists, unlike the others, mainly attack unarmed targets outside of, or only loosely connected to, the actual target.

Again, you just don't want to use the label because you don't want to face the fact. Anders is not a hero. He is a common criminal.

As for self-defense... um no. That defense will not fly here. Seriously, that is a VERY far-fetched and far stretched excuse of an argument. If I shoot a rapist trying to rape a woman, it might counts as self-defense (unless the court finds it that I have used more violence than the situation warrants, in which case I will be tried for manslaughter). This situation is not even CLOSE to that one, however.

[Psyren]

Civilians dies in wars. That does not make army leaders terrorists.

Or revolutionaries for that matter. Couldn't agree more.

As for "just a label"... there's a reason for labels. There is also a reason why there are DIFFERENT labels. There is an agreed upon difference between a freedom fighter, a guerilla leader, a revolutionary, a resistance leader and a terrorist. The obvious one of course is that terrorists, unlike the others, mainly attack unarmed targets outside of, or only loosely connected to, the actual target.

Again, you just don't want to use the label because you don't want to face the fact. Anders is not a hero. He is a common criminal.

First off, this is a false dichotomy - as "criminal" is a status that depends on the prevailing laws in a locality, and "hero" is a status that depends on how other individuals perceive your actions, it is quite possible to be both. (See also: Robin Hood.)
Second, I have indeed faced and dismissed it. As I mentioned above I saw no unarmed targets in that cutscene save Elthina, who was not a civilian. Templars are most certainly armed and are most certainly the enemy. Not saying there weren't any there but that is how the scene was framed. And if there were indeed innocents in that Chantry, their loss was regrettable, but I saw no feasible alternative.

As for self-defense... um no. That defense will not fly here. Seriously, that is a VERY far-fetched and far stretched excuse of an argument. If I shoot a rapist trying to rape a woman, it might counts as self-defense (unless the court finds it that I have used more violence than the situation warrants, in which case I will be tried for manslaughter). This situation is not even CLOSE to that one, however.

Imminent harm absolutely applies here because the torment of the mages was ongoing; every moment without a true revolt was another moment that a mage died or was mutilated in vain. Not to mention whatever Meredith was about to do after intercepting Orsino's attempt to involve Elthina.

[Avilan the Grey]

Imminent harm absolutely applies here because the torment of the mages was ongoing; every moment without a true revolt was another moment that a mage died or was mutilated in vain.

And that does not qualify. Seriously.

[Dienekes]

@ Dienekes - Careful there. Discussing the history of real-world wars tends to hit too closely to our prohibition on political discussions for the mods' comfort.

I really, really hate that restriction. This stuff was a minimum of 200 years old, it's not even political anymore. But yeah, you're right.

[Beowulf DW]

Imminent harm absolutely applies here because the torment of the mages was ongoing; every moment without a true revolt was another moment that a mage died or was mutilated in vain.

So if I find out that some company is dumping a dangerous chemical in the ocean, I can blow up their regional headquarters and claim self defense? Somehow I don't think that will hold up in any court.

[Psyren]

So if I find out that some company is dumping a dangerous chemical in the ocean, I can blow up their regional headquarters and claim self defense? Somehow I don't think that will hold up in any court.

By "dumping a chemical in the ocean," do you actually mean "are holding dozens of hostages in a separate facility against their will for routine torture, lobotomy and/or execution and their only hope for survival is to rise up against their jailers?" Otherwise your analogy doesn't really work here.

[Dienekes]

By "dumping a chemical in the ocean," do you actually mean "are holding dozens of hostages in a separate facility against their will for routine torture, lobotomy and/or execution and their only hope for survival is to rise up against their jailers?" Otherwise your analogy doesn't really work here.

Remember Anders was trying to goad Meredith to action. You keep glossing over that part. So he'd be the one trying to get the jailers to murder their prisoners in the hopes they will rise up. Instead of actually organizing a resistance so the mages can take their fate in their own hands he forces then to fight.

I would question the only hope for survival part there. Orsin I survives quite some time, Beth seems to like it there, and honestly I think Hawke kills way more mages than are ever even implied to be killed by Meredith. Could be wrong on that one, though