Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
This seems to be a topic that leads a lot of forums off topic, so please discuss it here instead of on forums it does not relate to. ----Isolationistmagi 01:31, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
Anders from DAA= Amusing Alistair replacement. But apparently he wasn't very bright, because the thought of Justice possessing him seemed like a good idea to him. Anders from DA2= Highly annoying, never shutting up, terrorist a-hole. That's my opinion.--Liam Sionnach (talk) 02:52, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
Oh god this topic. Involving innocents is always inexcusable, but it is easy to see why something like what Anders did happened, the way the Templars were pressing the mages was bound to have such consequences eventually. Rathian Warrior (talk) 02:54, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
- But he didn't attack the Templars, he attacked Kirkwall's chantry. Which isn't to say the Chantry as an institution is innocent- they aren't, I agree. They're assholes. Even though Anders has legitimate reasons to hate the Chantry, his choice of methods and choice of targets (not to mention the fact that he was a huge hypocrite, and a shining beacon of all the reasons the Chantry gets away with oppressing mages) destroy any credibility he might have had.--Liam Sionnach (talk) 03:13, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
I wish DA: A Anders was the basis of DA: II Anders. I liked A. Anders because he wasn't a hypocrite, he didn't mind becoming a blood mage and wasn't a preachy whiny prick. I wish him and justice never joined because apparantly becoming an abomination means you become an over homosexual while becoming a preachy a hole. I am not homophobic but when you change a characters definition it is just wrong.
- Exactly as Liam said. Anders did more to kill his own ideals than inaction would've. He's no better than a common terrorist. "Believe what I believe or I'll blow you up!" RomeoReject (talk) 06:15, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
Butt Anders adorable kitty lovingness makes up for a lot of it but I was so mad when he killed the Grand Cleric -GarettTheBoy
When he destroyed the Chantry in Kirkwall I started to hate him. I killed him. He was blinded by his hatred that he didn't see mages' guilt, ex. when Varania betrayed Fenris to Danarius and revelated to be a mage, he told Fenris was just jealous, Fenris was abused by magisters and betrayed by his only relative, no way he could be angry because of envy. Andy started that idiotic war, in which civillians suffer the most because of mages and templars' hate to each other. Mages he wanted to protect were maleficars - Orsino completelly failed his job and was a hypocryte. I see Anders as nobody, but an insane terrorist. He told he was changing the world, only insane idiots say such things. I don't want Fiona's Imperium or Lambert's dictatorship, I will also kill both of them, right now every mage and templar is a bloody murderer, nobody is innocent.
- As society improved (assuming there wasn't a dark age or something) and technology and culture advanced as they did, they would end up slowly getting freer and freer as magic became more understood and more and more controllable. With Ander's little civil war, what'd realistically happen is that, as the mages wage a destructive war against the (seemingly well liked) chantry and templars, they will be split away from normal people and feared and hated by them. As they fight as `mages`, not as any other category, people will even more see them as `mages`, not `people`. If Ander's objective was to free mages (as in, get them to be treated as normal people), blowing up the Chantry has shot that to hell more than any Circle or Annulment ever could. TheTeaMustFlow (talk) 08:54, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Change can be a good thing, but only when it is guided by the vision of one man, can you be certain that it leads to a specific direction. Chaos and anarchy is change too, and in a movie like "V for vendetta" anarchy might just be the best possibly solution. But no one was an enemy there, no one but the system itself that burned with the destruction of parliament.
- What we have here is a war, that alianates mages like TheTeaMustFlow said. Mages are dangerous and needs to be watched, not necessarily imprisoned, but they would always be different from "normies". What Anders did was to give the Templars a reason and justification for why mages should be suppressed.
- The war will most likely fragment the chantry and the templar order, not destroy it, but have it nationalised and put under the control of the individual kings. The kings would need to take charge and establish order with their own armies taking control of both templar chantry and mages in their respective realms, they have to do that, because if they don't it will be torn apart by civil war.
- I think that will be the end result of the war, and the mages status will be vastly different from one kingdom to the next. In some the mages would bow down to the king, and help him put the templars down, in others the templars will do the same and in some none would yield and the king will defeat both. If the king don't triumph the end result will be Fiona's Imperium or Lambert's dictatorship.-rphb- (talk) 09:29, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Problem I see there Rob, is that he's polarized ALOT of people against the Mages. Most of Thedas will see Mages versus Templar and instantly go after the Mages. Tevinter was strike one, Orsino strike two and Anders will be the last straw. He's essentially condemned every Mage to war, whether they wanted it or not. RomeoReject (talk) 11:14, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
I think forcing the Anders from Awakening into DAII was one of the many bad design decisions they made. Not only because it completely overruled whatever decisions your Warden-Commander made but because they are way to different. In Awakening Anders simply wanted to be free. He had no problem with his fellow mages living under Chantry control and even thought that pulling away from the Chantry would be a disaster. Sure, Justice prodded him that he had a responsibility towards his fellow, mistreated mages, but that does in no way explain the hatred he was supposed to have that transformed Justice into Vengeance. To make it short: I liked Awakening-Anders. DAII-Anders is a crazy terrorist. If he really wanted to do something for the mages he would have assassinated Meredith. Heck, I could have even understood it if he had assassinated Elthina. Elthina was responsible for the Templars and didn't manage to control them, she failed at her duty and the mages suffered for it. But that's not why he did it. He killed her and a bunch of innocents because he was afraid that she would finally do her duty, send Meredith to hell and preserve the status quo. While being a mage wasn't that great simply tearing everything apart only makes things worse for them. DAO showed with Connor how dangerous unsupervised mages are. And it only takes one such incident to make people kill every child that shows signs of being a mage. Anders actions are probably going to kill more mages than Uldred and Meredith combined.--Navarion (talk) 11:31, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
- After listening to all the party banter put together on YouTube, I realized that a lot of what Anders becomes in DA2 was actually foreshadowed in Awakening. Give it a listen. Son Goharotto (talk) 12:24, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
- The same is true with the perverting of Justice, he talks a lot of being envious of mortals like the beauty of the world and borderline jealously of wanting to feel something like the love like Kristoff and Aura. Even becoming angry and wanting "Vengeance" (a dialog option for the warden) for the death of Kristoff by killing the darkspawn. The plan seems heavily laid in Awakening if you delve into the details. It hurts my head to see posts saying why did they ruin him in DA2 without noticing it was clearly what he was going to be. Tommyspa (talk) 02:28, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
The problem here is the method used. Violence may lead to freedom, but its a temporary freedom and only leads to oppression and tighter control later on, example, just about every revolution in history which operated under the pretext of "freeing" people. It either failed and retaliation and retribution often leaves the situation worse off than it was before. To quote Gandhi: "I object to violence because when it appears to do good the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent", meaning that the violent means cannot be justified to change the world. It leaves a scar in the minds of everyone, and as we all know, scars don't heal, they might fade, but they don't heal. What Anders did is unforgivable and unforgettable. He murdered (and thats what he did, no matter how you try to spin it), one of, if not the most important person in Eastern Thedas in a highly visible manner. That act was no longer about showing the oppression of the Chantry, but the opening salvo in a war that is going to hurt the mages far more than its going to help and the revelation of a true abomination. --Madasamadthing (talk) 12:31, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
I certainly agree with the wishes for DA2 Anders to have been more rooted in Awakening Anders. In Awakening Anders was actually against the mages breaking away from the Chantry. Because he feared what would happen to mages if they didn't have some sort body presiding over them. He was more interested in Templars leaving him alone than all mages being free. That self-interest allowed him to be a playful rebel everyone loved. For me to justify the massive change that took place in my mind I have to figure that Justice's unwavering righteousness caused Anders to be much more globally aware. His motives were just, Anders took the path that many people in real life take. He started to become more aware of the problem, Justice's essence wouldn't let him selfishly turn a blind eye anymore, and instead of finding a way through the proper channels to change things, he became a radical. Almost every revolution in human history has those revolutionary figures that became more about embodying their ideas than their own personalities. As far as I'm concerned Anders is dead. Vengeance, the union of he and Justice, is all that's left. I do however think Kirkwall was a terrible environment for such an unstable person, if he had stayed in Ferelden I think he could have done a lot of good without having to wage war. None of this justifies what he did. I think that he was a righteous rebel, someone who dedicated his life to stopping an injustice. But when he decided that the Grand Cleric should die for her neutrality and acted on it, killing at least 100 if not more innocents in the process, he crossed over from righteous rebel to terrorist. Imagine if during a world war, a German man was fighting for freedom of a certain group. Everyone respects him for his valiant fight, he asks Sweden for help, but they're officially neutral and can't openly help him. So he bombs the ever-loving hell out of them. He's not a hero anymore, he's a lunatic. And now everyone in the world is convinced that not only was he crazy, but that his cause wasn't as just as they thought because its leader was raving mad man. Sorry for the simple point said long, didn't mean to go off on a tangent. Tyrannus3 (talk) 03:07, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
His intention was understandable but his action is incredibly stupid. The actions of the Mages, Templars and the Chantry are idiotic towards the problem. Even Alistair is an idiot for not doing anything. And Anders only made everything worse that it is. Just look at his face after he blew up the Chantry. Based on his body language he was uncertain on his choice of action.
The main problem is that everyone fears magic and they are trying to suppress it. They should have instead educated the ones who can use magic. What my King of Ferelden would have done is renovated the Circle of Magi to make people realize that magic is something that can be controlled like a sword and that it also has advantages. My King of Ferelden would also have reinstated the Circle of Magi in the hands of the Grey Wardens instead of the Templars of the Chantry. KoF would also use Connor as an icon figure.--16:02, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
This is what I just recognized. Anders says in DA2 that Justice is gone, that he and Anders are one. Justice's and Anders' thoughts are the same. The line, I believe, is "not even the greatest scholar could tell you where I end and he begins." So if that's true, then Justice's desire to free the mages and fulfill that obligation he feels Anders should have towards them becomes the driving force in Anders life after they become the same being. So really, I agree with what Jak said. Anders in a righteous rebel, while Justice is the insane terrorist.--DarthValius (talk) 22:58, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
Insane terrorist: he deliberately murdered innocents to force an issue. If he'd held rallies, published some pamphlets, organized a legit mage underground, and maybe led some vandalism or saboteur raids against the templars (destroying weapons or lyrium caches), then he'd be a rebel. But once he blew up a chantry? Evil nutjob. And, in Anders's case, he went from whiny malcontent to terrorist. He just skipped right over the righteous indignation stage. HELO (talk) 17:30, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
I love what they did with Anders in DA2, sure I get annoyed at his personality at times. However what his character change did was open up a conflict in my opinion far more interesting than any blight. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and Anders may to us seem like a hypocrite and overall a giant douche to mages all over Thedas he could be seen as a hero trying to help his fellow man at a tragic cost. I'm really amazed that people hate what happened with him so much as he's gone from a mage Alistair rip-off to one of the most interesting characters in this franchise in my opinion.--TheRageMage (talk) 17:40, June 11, 2012 (UTC)TheRageMage
- For my part, I think you're right about Anders being a poor man's Alistair. And I didn't like him in DA:A just for that reason. So I was already annoyed at having to spend time with him again before he opened his mouth. But once he started talking, I desperately missed the poor man's Alistair. Because the general point of his character could have been used to great effect and made to be very compelling (if not likeable)--as I think they managed, more or less, with the Arishok. I didn't have to agree with him, but I should have been able to see the merit in agreeing with him. But the Anders we got in DA2 was a one-dimensional charicature of a rebel and came off more like a disgruntled teenager than a revolutionary. He was only there to shout about mages, just like Fenris was only there to "balance things out" by moaning loudly about mages. HELO (talk) 18:32, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
Eh I say terrorist because I just think that while his goals, like many freedom fighters, were honorable he went about it the completely wrong way. First off he went to Kirkwall and as I will preach over and over that city is terrible and makes anything worse than what it really is, like someone mentioned above, had Anders just stayed his butt in Fereldan he would have likely found some sort of (mostly) peaceful way of resolving the situation rather than completely losing his mind and bombing a chantry.
Secondly did he have to bomb a chantry? He could have assassinated Merideth and make a conspiracy to make it look like the work of a madman and not a mage thus avoiding the blame then wait a little while to see if things get better, oh but he isn't smart enough for that apparently. And why remove the chance of compromise? Last time I checked something was better than nothing at all. Why not kill both Orsino and Meredith and try to organize your own compromise? (we end up killing both anyway) heavens knows very few templars really liked or agreed with Meredith and Orsino was incompetent and a liar, not to mention there were apparently a bunch of mages and templars working together anyway so why not rally them?
Lastly I see no real good way this war he started can end without some neutral compromise and mediation. If the mages win the people will more than likely rise against to mages because of what they have been taught and from fear that rises when mages kill people who obviously have families like anyone else during the war. The mages are more than likely going to have to abolish the chantry as well because of it's obvious dislike and mistrust of mages and many people would not like their religion being "outlawed". So sure mages will can be free through war, but they will likely have to fight off a number of rebels and common folk who hate and mistrust them, and that can easily lead to a new tevinter empire, and if it doesn't well I hope you all like the new "age of troubles" because there will more than likely be constant fighting if the mages refuse take power and totally take over. If the templars win, things will more than likely go back to the way they were before the war, except worse! More templars would be hired many of them joining more than likely out of rage from what the mages did or ones who want revenge for maybe a family member being killed in the war, there will be more tranqils, more mutual distrust of mages, and tighter circle rules.
Over all I think Anders (or Justice/Vengeance at least) made a terrible mistake and deserves most of hate he gets, there were so many better ways he could have approached the situation but instead he decided to to this. Sorry for the wall of text lol, this is pretty much my full thoughts on the subject. MrRexfire (talk) 20:33, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
Agreed 100% Rexfire. Anders is an idiot. All he's done is stack the deck against the very mages he was supposedly trying to save. Also, TheRageMage, part of the reason he's so hated is because he uses you. He always wants your help (And gets extremely mad at you if you refuse), and never offers any explanation in return. Then, because of your aid, has also implicated you in the bombing of innocents. All of which could've been avoided (And the mages properly helped) if he had just not been a secretive dickhead and spoke to you before killing everyone. RomeoReject (talk) 21:03, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
I wish Anders had asked me for help with blowing up the chantry, I would gladly light the fuse. Anders is a righteous rebel, mage freedom is bathed in blood and it will take more blood to free every mage from the chantry's grip. All hail Darkside! 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:33, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
An idiot, that's what Anders is. Sure, something had to be done about the mages' situation in Kirkwall, but blowing up a building with people in it is not the way to go. I've recently done 2 playthroughs of Awakening and oddly enough these 2 times I thought of Anders as incredibly naive and childish in a way. The fact that Bioware did a terrible job with this black/white morality in DA2 is another matter... Yammamoto69 (talk) 05:02, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
I don't think they ruined Anders' character, they gave him and Justice character development that was foreshadowed in Awakening from random dialogue between party members, also, I agree (in part, murder is murder no matter what) with what he did in DAII because otherwise the mages and the templars were going to be told to go to their rooms and think about what they've done, again. Also he wasn't really going for "agree with me or be exploded" it was about accepting the inevitable war and starting it now rather than later, although again, I think the blowing up the chantry, while very impressive, was slightly overkill, he could've slapped Meredith and started a war, she was crazy. Gow (talk) 07:58, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
- What the hell are you talking about? You're the only person who brought up religion. RomeoReject (talk) 16:24, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
I would say that he is a Terrorist he blows up the Chantry which has innocents in it and a neutral Grand Cleric who should have tried to remove Meredith... if my KoF was there he wouls have sadly taken down Anders after it remove Meredith and mak a compromise. Anders just started a war that will end up bleeding Thedas. Not as a bad as a Blight but incredibly bad. The Templars diden't agree with their Commander and should have spoken up. In DA:A Anders was funny and was foreshadowed yes but he became very hateable. And to the post without a signature who thinks that Mage freedom is paved with blood all this war is doing is making things worse for the Mages. The Chantry is huge well known and loved and has quite a bit of power. I agree Mages should be watched and harrowed for the safety of the innocents but not treated so terribly as Meredith wishes them. Lord Warden (talk) 20:37, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
The OP's question is too rigid for my taste. Can I choose my own answer please? Not righteous rebel, not insane terrorist, but the most epic troll in the whole DA franchise. DA2 is out for more then a year, but people still feel hurt, you know, down there, below the back. Props for Anders XD -Algol- (talk) 21:59, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Lord Warden. Had he picked his targets (Meredith) I would've not only understood, I'd have helped. But he didn't. He blew up the Chantry - an institution full of innocents. I am an "ends justify the means" kind of individual, but even I acknowledge that what Anders did will almost certainly not end well for anyone, least of all the mages. RomeoReject (talk) 06:06, June 13, 2012 (UTC)
If Anders was still Anders, I would call him a rebel who just wants to be free, but thanks to Justice, he is not! They corrupted each other and secretly, I want to blame Nat for getting the "willing host idea" into Justices head! Listen to the party banter between those two, you'll understand. --Xxellenmaysongxx (talk) 19:34, June 13, 2012 (UTC)
I don't blame he was for lack of a better word possesed I blame Justice or whatever became of him after Awakening I don't see how killing those innocents was an act of justice the It wasn't the Chantry who committed all those brutalities against the Mages it was the Templar Order which are affiliated with the Chantry but still and Meridith was out of control and I think if the Templar's had a more sensible leader like Cullin or anyone a little less crazy a lot of this could be avoided It was rather foolish of Anders to kill Grang Cleric Elthina considering she was instrumental in keeping peace (and besides she was so nice she was just a sweet old lady D: ) --GarettTheBoy
Justice prooved to be a hypocrite by killing innocent people in the Chantry, Hawke said to Anders "The grand cleric, the mages, their blood is on your hands!". A and J were corrupting each other like Xxellenmaysongxx said. Blaming Justice for Andy's crimes is like blaming the idol for Meredith's cruelty. I see Anders as an insane terrorist. He told he was changing the world, words of a typical lunatic.
- I'm guessing this is not part of R0B45's comment, since the two don't fit, so can the writer please sign your post. FWI, the idol picked up Meredith's worst trait, her cruelty and made it worse, to the point of maddness, so it is partly to blame. --Xxellenmaysongxx (talk) 16:19, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
I don't think "insane terrorist" could ever be correct, someone that is insane does not act on behalf of others, nor do they attempt to achieve a goal. Perhaps you should not include the word "insane" for this forum. --R0B45 (talk) 07:11, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
- that is really wrong with this entire senario is that it completely destroyed the role playing elements of the game. I not only wished, but extected that I would be able to join the resistance and have meraradith removed for then to instal a more hawke friendly leader of the templars. But no, everyone just jumped up and attacked, Hawke was nothing but a message boy, and the biggest douche in Thedas. When the warden took a mission from Loghain (Loghain's Push) he could at least report that and "unfortunate accedent" happened", which lead to the mission being a "failure".
- The problem with DA2 isn't that you make plans and they are fucked up by insane people like Anders, it's that you don't make plans, you just do whatever it is you are tolled to do. There were so many better whays they could have reached the desired ending without it feeling like such a big anticlimax. You want to know who the real terrorist is? Mike Laidlaw. Because he fucked up the Dragon Age series so bad that there is practically no saving it anymore.-rphb- (talk) 08:35, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
If you ask me, Anders was bad from the start. In awakening, he disapproves of you hunting down (clearly dangerously insane) apostates/maleficar, and still calls Tevinter `a better way of doing things`. Anyone who favours a society based on slavery, murder and ritual blood sacrifice is not exactly nice. TheTeaMustFlow (talk) 16:19, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
The fact that Tevinter has slavery and the fact that Tevinter is run by mages are completly unrelated to each other. And the fact that he likes a society where the mages are the ruling elite and not the oppressed underdog is not a sign that he in any way is "bad" (in lack of a better word) either. -rphb- (talk) 20:28, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
Given the direction that the series has taken, I feel that the writers definitely sympathize with the mages. Personally, I am partial to the mages because their powers have great potential to benefit humanity. I'd like to see a resurgence of the Tevinter Imperium and a reunification of Thedas so that great projects like the Imperial Highway can be completed. The stability that the Imperium provided in its heyday is surely better than the chaos that grips the world now. Whocares65 (talk) 21:54, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
Ruined characters and ham-handed plot-inevitability aside, I humbly suggest that he is both. Despite his initial insouciance, Anders‘s many escapes from the Circle tower clearly demonstrated his personal opposition to the Chantry’s oppressive domination over the Circle. His soft-hearted agreement to be the spirit’s host may have sharpened his dissent, but it also ultimately deprived him of his right mind, and made him something of a mostly-contained abomination. On the other hand, Justice was essentially a pure aspiration to one particular virtue, lacking the imagination to clearly consider the full ramifications of its actions. Twisted by Anders’s repressed anger into Vengeance, the spirit’s strict adherence to its primal ambition, now in the name of mage freedom, drove it to do anything to see its obsession fulfilled. The combination of the two, subjected to seven years of the pre-frontal whack-a-doodle that was Kirkwall, resulted in turning Anders into an insane rebel, and Justice becoming Vengeance the righteous terrorist. Well, that’s my two cents anyway…. I tried to keep the ramble brief. =) Shenachie (talk) 03:46, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Here's my issue with that though. Even if you say "Anders wasn't himself" (Which is false, he clearly retains his humanity; Justice/Vengeance would have no interest in a romance), his actions STILL don't make sense. On more than one occasion, Anders notes that Meredith is out of control. When you speak with Ethina, she says Meredith isn't taking orders from her. It is quite clear who Anders needs to kill for Mage freedom. And yet, he doesn't attack the Templars. He doesn't even attack Meredith. No... He goes for the Chantry, like an idiot. It isn't Justice. It isn't Vengeance. It's stupidity. RomeoReject (talk) 16:53, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Anders undoubtedly knew that Meredith was the main threat. I mean they didn't write the character to be a complete idiot. My guess would be that he saw Meredith as a threat he could deal with after the fact. He says it right in the game that he wanted to eliminate the possibility of compromise. If there's a middle ground then the two sides can form a peace. But if there is no middle ground, then the only option is to destroy the other side. He knew the Grand Cleric was neutral and would try to bring peace between the two, allowing Meredith to live. Anders didn't want that to be a possibility, he viewed Orsino in much the same manner for wanting to avoid the fighting. With no Grand cleric, there would be no one standing in the way, trying to bring peace and keep everyone alive. It was definitely not the best plan of action, no one sane would argue that. But Anders is mentally unstable, it doesn't matter whether you think of him as one or two entities you can't deny that his judgment is at least somewhat impaired. In his mind there isn't a possibility for peace, because what everyone thinks is "peace" would still require some subjection of mages which would eventually be abused again. Anders thought his actions were the only way to stop that from happening again. And I would argue that he realizes as soon as it happens what he's done. Everyone makes mistakes, errors in judgment. Anders' mistake just wound up costing more lives. Tyrannus3 (talk) 18:52, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
- You just listed off the problem though: He doesn't want Meredith to live. So, he can kill Ethina, rallying support for the Templars and thus making Meredith even safer and harder to kill, or he could, you know, just kill Meredith instead. Remember: He has a bomb. Undoubtedly, the Templars would get some support, but all-in-all, Kirkwall knew she was a threat, and would've understood. Frankly, his plan was only saved due to plot armour. After his little stunt, I joined Meredith's cause, so the last thing he'd know before I killed him was that his actions had brought about the death of almost every Mage in Kirkwall. RomeoReject (talk) 20:11, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it was a good plan and I think that after the fact even he realizes the atrocity of it. But my theory is just that those things could have been his motivation. Obviously outside of the game world, the creators need some big grand event to kick off open hostilities. But in the world, Anders/Justice whatever is just a man, albeit an abnormal man, but a man nonetheless. He has flawed judgment. I'm not saying he chose the right path, I completely disagree with everything he stands for at the end of the game. (No compromise and all that) And even though the story could have been developed better to the point that maybe such a grand spectacle wouldn't have been necessary. But given what we're given and in the spirit of giving even the least developed character the attributes of a proper person. I'm inclined to suggest that Anders undertakes terrorist actions because of his flaws in judgment, distorted world view, mixed with a bit of angsty arrogance. I don't support the actions but do believe them to be the result of a very real and human problem experienced by the character. I'm not disagreeing with you that it was a stupid, stupid thing to do. But rather I'm just suggesting that it isn't totally unfounded. He did what he thought would be best and wound up wrong, catastrophically so, and he should suffer the consequences like anyone else. But stupidity wasn't the only reason he did it, through his own human flaws, he acted on his judgment for better or worse. Tyrannus3 (talk) 16:01, June 16, 2012 (UTC)
- That’s why I said Anders was a ‘mostly-contained abomination’. He wasn’t physically deformed or attacking everyone in sight (and as someone else in an old forum once said, Anders retained enough control over the spirit to get laid once in a while) but even he admitted the greatest scholar couldn’t tell where he ended and spirit began anymore. Obviously any thoughts he had were going to be at least somewhat influenced by Justice. That being said, Anders wasn’t stupid and his actions did make a bit of sense.
- He cannot simply kill Meredith. Her death at the hands of a mad apostate would turn her into a martyr and make her worse than she was already, as well as further endangering the minds and lives of the mages imprisoned in the Gallows. Unfortunately, Meredith wasn’t universally reviled nor was she completely wrong. Some people in Kirkwall did support her simply because there *were* blood mages popping out of the stonework like daisies. (Yes, her extreme measures encouraged many of them but I won’t get into that circular logic here.) Orsino, a non-issue as Meredith’s b*tch, was a moron if he thought petitioning the Grand Cleric was going to do anything. Elthina’s idea of ‘compromise’ was to maintain the status quo. Well, as everyone knew, the status was not ‘quo’ for mages. Elthina was a sweet, ineffectual, old lady – which is what made her death so tragic - but she insistently and blindly clung to her mantras that ‘man’s time is not the Maker’s time’ and they ‘must give Meredith and Orsino time to work out their differences’, despite the fact it was idiotically obvious to everybody that Meredith and Orsino would *not* put aside their differences even in the face of a sudden and violent Qunari occupation. As the Grand Cleric and the authority over the local Templar order, it was well past time for Momma Chantry to step in and tell some folks how things were going to be, but Elthina stood around, tut-tutting for everyone to behave and play nice – for seven years. Meanwhile her inaction, and persistently blind eye, wordlessly condoned the Templars’ increasingly harsh abuses towards the magical portion of ‘her flock’ that was locked away in the Gallows.
- By blowing the Chantry, Anders attacked the institution in general, avoiding the manufacture of any particular martyrs, and removing the impediment to the status becoming a new quo – for better or worse – not just in Kirkwall, but for mages everywhere. He did realize he’d just taken a horribly decisive action. Even he agreed “it’s worse than [he] thought it would be”, and when Aveline told him he would answer in a court of fairly-applied law for what he’d done, he admitted ‘that’s something [he] would like to see”.
- I still don’t disregard what Anders did, but that’s my understanding of his situation. Frankly, I think Hawke should have been able to dissuade Anders from that course of action, only to have someone like Grace do it anyway. She was crazy enough to do commit the act, it would have still kicked off the war, she could have been the other boss instead of Orsino, and Hawke would actually have had a chance to make a difference at least in the life of one of her friends. Shenachie (talk) 19:06, June 16, 2012 (UTC)
- I think the Chantry deserved it, personally. Okay, maybe Grand Cleric Elthina wasn't so bad, but those around her were wolves and Anders was trying to prove a point. He has always been a little misled and with a spirit of Vengeance/Justice inside of him, I think I understand. He didn't want there to be any way for either side to cry to them and get support. They needed to figure it out on their own. Terrorist? no. Rebel? Possibly. Let's see if he shows up again, and possibly views will change.RozenHawke343 (talk) 19:31, June 16, 2012 (UTC)
I think everyones forgetting that the other mages chose to rebel, Anders didn't force anyone out of Kirkwall to rebel. They saw the events, realised that templers were defeatable and went for it.Most, i am saying most and not all, wanted to be free from the Chantry. I don't agree with his methods, but the war was not his fault entirely.
- Sign your posts please. And they didn't have much choice BUT to rebel. Anders stupid antics started a war. Your choice was fight the Templar, or die by the Templar. Not much of a choice, you'll find... RomeoReject (talk) 00:56, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
I'm kinda tired and bored of this whole Anders discussion, but it seems, that today I'm in a mood to argue. So let's begin.
I have this huge issue with Anders being called a terrorist everywhere, this topic included. Mostly he's being called a terrorist by people, who think they learned all about terrorism... from television XD As a lawyer by education, who did some studies on the concept of terrorism, I'll tell you what: no such thing as terrorism or terrorists exist in a fictional world of Thedas. You see, my dear friends, this fictional world of Thedas is (loosely) based on Medieval Europe, and people in Medieval Europe were, surprise surprise, very different from us, present-day folks. They had different set of morals. What we may consider atrocities now, those people considered perfectly normal. And they did not have a concept of terrorism, which was invented not long ago in modern world. Mind you, this concept doesn't have a clear definition even in modern world, and you want to apply it to a fictional world with different people? Now that's just plain silly.
You see, with DA being an RPG (as in "role-playing game", not "rocket-propelled grenade", frequently used by terrorists), you have to think of yourself having qualities and mindsets of the character in that world, not real you in real world. That's kinda the whole point of role-playing. And what do we see in that Thedas world?:
Orlais is ruled by the Empress, who has a complete legal power over the lives of her people, which weren't lucky to be born noble.
- Nobody calls it "totalitarianism". Why? Because that concept doesn't exist.
In human cities, elves are considered second-class citizens and are being locked away in alienages.
- Nobody calls it "racial segregation". Why? Because that concept doesn't exist.
Mages are being forced into Circles.
- Nobody calls it "violation of human (or elven) rights". Why? You know the drill, because that concept doesn't exist. Well, one of the real-world doctrines in law would actually state, that it does exist in theory, but in any case, the concept isn't recognized in Thedas.
But here's my favorite example. One I always bring up in discussions like this, and one nobody was able to disprove as of yet. Back in Awakening, the Warden Commander (your character!) has an option to take hostages, so their noble relatives wouldn't plot against him/her, during this quest. Holy shit! taking hostages to scare their relatives into submission, in order to achieve your political goals! That fits the modern term of "terrorism" perfectly! Would you call the Warden Commander a terrorist for that? I don't think so. Because...
- Nobody calls it "terrorism". Why? You get the idea, right? Because that concept doesn't exist. Funnily enough, such taking of hostages is considered a legitimate practice. I guess that would illustrate, that Theodosians have, like, really different set of morals, then we do.
Now, just to compare. Comparison is a great way to learn and understand, right? Mass Effect universe, DA's "sister game", so to speak, actually has the concept of "terrorism" recognized in-game. Cerberus or some batarian organizations (if not the whole Hegemony, just kidding XD) are being legally classified and recognized as terrorist organizations. Why? because this concept actually exists in the gameworld. You may safely call The Illusive Man, Kai Leng or Balak (some even include Shepard himself/herself) terrorists. You can't call Anders that. Call him a mass-murderer or even a war criminal (I'd argue both points, though), but not a terrorist, because, again, the concept does not exist in his world.
But enough with law theory, let's move to the fun part.
What I consider the most funny, is that accusation of terrorism or murdering innocent people (btw, proof, or it didn't happen) come from people, whose characters engaged in homicide of astronomic proportions!!! Open DA:O select party information and look at the "people killed" line! The sheer number of them, my dear friends, the sheer number! And you're the one to blame Anders? Really? You can say: "Screw you Algol, Anders killed innocents, and I killed bad people!" Nope. I mean, how would you know? Maybe that bandit #318 was a good guy, who was working undercover in the gang to blow them up from inside (blow them up, he-he). And you killed him, you bastard!XD How many of such cases could be in thousands of people your character killed? I mean, you're allowed to kill people, but Anders is not? How hypocrite can that be?
Accusations of terrorism or murdering innocent people also come from people, whose characters chose to burn Amaranthine to the ground in Awakening. See, Anders had a great teacher of how to burn shit down! So how many have you killed, huh? You can say: "Screw you Algol, the alternative was worse!" Wrong. Look at the people in the cutscene, crying over their dead relatives and burning in flames. They are the ones who had it worse. Actually, Awakening does show innocent people injured and dying in Amaranthine, and so does ME2 LotSB, when Vasir blows up the trade center. DA2 never does. It only shows Elthina and a bunch of templars being killed in the explosion, no innocent kittens were harmed. So it didn't happen, and Anders didn't actually kill any innocents. You can say: "Screw you Algol, it's common sense, that other people died, even if it is not shown!". Well, of course not. Bioware's storytelling in DA2 doesn't exactly tie with common sense, therefore we should only acknowledge what is shown or written in the game.
Accusations of terrorism or murdering innocent people also come from people, whose characters completed the Antivan Crows questline in DA:O. You know, to get those awesome [Red Jenny Seekers]. Engaging in political assassinations, really? You're a terrorist, you know that? You have no moral rights to judge Anders.
So if you hate Anders for making a pass on your straight male character (oh teh noes!) or not telling jokes, like in Awakening, it's your prerogative. but calling him a terrorist is simply incorrect.
TL;DR version: Anders is not a terrorist, because that concept does not exist in Thedas. Your own characters are far worse then him, and I don't care if you blow up my house for speaking the truth XD -Algol- (talk) 19:23, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
Anders is very much a terrorist. The more I really looked at his character from DA2, I noticed how subtly manipulative, controlling, obsessive, arrogant, cruel, nasty, hypocritical, crazy, sociopathic, and evil Anders really was. And he has ALWAYS been selfish. He was willing to MURDER innocent people of the Chantry to make a point? A stand? Are you kidding me? He’s basically trying to control Hawke the ENTITRE game from the first time you meet him. I mean even playing him as a rival he constantly tries to convert you to his way of thinking, a thing he BLAST the Chantry for doing. Justice was simply that in Awakening. He was FAIR and JUST. But when he merged with Anders HE was CORRUPTED not the other way around. For my female Hawke it is the most heartbreaking story ever. But as a taste of his own sick medicine I make damn sure he kills the mages and stays with me! >.< --Wonder411 (talk) 22:14, June 17, 2012 (UTC)--Wonder411 (talk) 22:14, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Algol, for your intelligent commentary. You're pretty much the only one here who seems to have it right. Anders is NOT a terrorist, and if I could have helped him blow up the chantry, I would have. Please do keep in mind this is a GAME and a fictional world, not real life. That being said, would you subject yourself or your children to imprisonment in a place like the Gallows for no other reason than for being born the way they were? I'm sorry, but considering how easily I take down abominations throughout the game, I don't think mages are dangerous enough to warrant locking them up like that. If you want templars around like we have firefighters, "in case of demon emergency", be my guest, but no human being should be locked up against their will when they have committed no crime beyond a circumstance of their birth. Then, when they try to escape said punishment, they are tortured - there is a line in Awakening where Anders mentions that he spent A YEAR in solitary confinement. THAT is torture, folks. That was just after his sixth escape attempt, so think of all of the punishments and beatings he took after the escapes prior. And you wonder why the man holds a bit of a grudge! The reason the chantry and Elthina were the target was because it was ultimately up to her to reign in Meredith but she refused. As Grand Cleric, she had the power to step in and do something but she "left it up to the Maker". When you show Elthina the papers you find on Ser Alrik after the Dissent quest in Act 2, she is more concerned about Alrik's murder than the fact that he was illegally making Harrowed mages tranquil. That automatically makes her culpable, in my mind, to the abuses that occurred within the Gallows.
Beyond his personal reasons, Anders blew up the chantry in particular (and not, say, Templar Hall) in part because he knew Meredith would automatically blame the Circle for it and call for the Rite of Annulment (which she was already waiting to hear back from the Divine about, according to Ser Karras if you click on him in act 3 - she'd already called for it, but needed confirmation, which is another reason why Anders needed to act. He mentions the mage underground has been destroyed and that nobody's listened to his writings). Sebastian says, "Why are were arguing about the Rite of Annulment when the monster who did this is right here?" but he's ignored - Meredith goes ahead with her plan to butcher the circle mages who had nothing to do with Anders's plans. Anders wanted this - he wanted to prove that he was right, that Meredith was blinded by her hatred of mages and not any real sense of right or wrong, which is true. She ignores the man who committed the crime, choosing to blame the innocents under her care.
There are numerous reasons as to why Anders chose to blow up the chantry, but these are a few glaring points that I've seen so far overlooked here in this discussion that I hope some of you will at least consider. It baffles me how so many are quick to condemn, but I honestly think a large part of that is just because so many are unhappy with the direction Anders's character took after Awakening. That's a topic that I could write a freakin' book on at this point, but to sum it up, it was HEAVILY FORESHADOWED if you listened carefully. Whether the writers already had it planned or not, there's enough there in the party banter in Awakening to support what happened.Lessthansign3 (talk) 02:57, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
I applaud Algol for tackling this issue. However, I disagree with your reasoning on virtually every point. Please let me know if there is something that I misunderstand :)
== no such thing as terrorism or terrorists exist in a fictional world of Thedas'. You see, my dear friends, this fictional world of Thedas is (loosely) based on Medieval Europe, and people in Medieval Europe were, surprise surprise, very different from us, present-day folks. They had different set of morals. What we may consider atrocities now, those people considered perfectly normal. And they did not have a concept of terrorism, which was invented not long ago in modern world. ==
You appear to argue that there is no such thing as terrorism because the people of Thedas had different social and moral views? I disagree. If a society believes that killing innocents to further their own cause is correct, that does not mean that it is not terrorism; it just means that it is socially accepted. Even so, destroying the chantry and everyone in it appears to be considered extremely socially unacceptable as can be inferred from virtually every other character's reaction to the incident, which undermines this argument.
== You see, with DA being an RPG (as in "role-playing game", not "rocket-propelled grenade", frequently used by terrorists), you have to think of yourself having qualities and mindsets of the character in that world, not real you in real world. That's kinda the whole point of role-playing. And what do we see in that Thedas world?: ==
While that is the point of roleplaying, it is NOT the point of this discussion. The entire point is to view what happened in game through our own moral views.
== What I consider the most funny, is that accusation of terrorism or murdering innocent people (btw, proof, or it didn't happen) come from people, whose characters engaged in homicide of astronomic proportions!!! ==
This argument does not apply to people who purposefully roleplay evil or 'pragmatic' characters; it is only relevant to people who think that such actions were moral. In this way, people who believed that the atrocities committed by their own characters are moral should feel a little silly. However, this does not mean that Anders is not a terrorist.
== But here's my favorite example. One I always bring up in discussions like this, and one nobody was able to disprove as of yet. Back in Awakening, the Warden Commander (your character!) has an option to take hostages, so their noble relatives wouldn't plot against him/her, during this quest. Holy shit! taking hostages to scare their relatives into submission, in order to achieve your political goals! That fits the modern term of "terrorism" perfectly! Would you call the Warden Commander a terrorist for that? ==
See my above responses. At worst, your example should make people who believe that atrocities committed by their own characters are moral from our moral views AND call Anders a terrorist should feel a little silly. Furthermore (as previously stated), it does not matter if an action is socially acceptable within a given society because we are discussing such actions from our moral perspective which means that it can still be deemed an act of terrorism. Furthermore, Anders' actions appear to be socially unexceptable which undermines this line of reasoning.
== Actually, Awakening does show innocent people injured and dying in Amaranthine, and so does ME2 LotSB, when Vasir blows up the trade center. DA2 never does. It only shows Elthina and a bunch of templars being killed in the explosion, no innocent kittens were harmed. So it didn't happen, and Anders didn't actually kill any innocents. You can say: "Screw you Algol, it's common sense, that other people died, even if it is not shown!". Well, of course not. Bioware's storytelling in DA2 doesn't exactly tie with common sense, therefore we should only acknowledge what is shown or written in the game. ==
Do you recall that forum called 'Magic'? Rathian Warrior wished to discuss 4Fereldan's view that uses of magic not shown in game or in the books should be deemed impossible. It was generally believed that this was a narrow minded point of view. I believe that the same reasoning applies to your response here, especially since it is implied by Anders and others that innocents were harmed.
Here is my attempt at resolving this question:
As difficult as it may be, given that there is no universally accepted definition, we first need to define terrorism as best we can. Here is a definition from wikipedia: Terrorism: The systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.
Anders destroyed the chantry and killed innocent people in order to further his cause. His actions appear to qualify for the definition.
Lets try to find a defintion for 'righteous rebel'. The closest i could get was 'freedom fighter': people who are using physical force in order to cause a change in the political and or social order.
Anders used force to cause a change in the political and social order and so he meets the criteria for a righteous rebel too! So which is it?
Logically, Anders is actually both. However, it appears that both terms are frequently used in order to label specific groups as enemies or allies even if they performed very similar actions, implying some degree of subjectivity is involved. In other words, the answer to the question of whether Anders was a terrorist or a righteous rebel depends on whether or not you agree with his cause (to free the mages from undeniable oppression) and whether you believe that his actions were right (on principle, worthy sacrifice ect). If you do, then Anders is/was a freedom fighter. If you do not, then Anders is/was a terrorist. --Ccg08 (talk) 10:49, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, at a certain point, discussing Anders’s bomb plot is just splitting hairs. But pushing your subjectivity point just a little further: does the target of his attack help make any kind of distinction between terrorist and rebel (regardless of the death of innocents)? And can Anders qualify as a freedom fighter if, instead of trying to make a specific social change (like freeing mages or ending the Chantry), he doesn’t seem to care who wins just so long as the two opposing sides finally duke it out? HELO (talk) 15:46, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding your first question, I'm not sure that considering his target actually does help with the distinction... a fairly modern example: Prior to 1994, South Africa had a variety of strong segregatory and oppressive legislation strongly in favour of the white minority population (this was called Apartheid). Some right-wing military/political groups performed terror tactics that resulted in the harming of innocent life (pillow bombs in shopping centers and petrol stations etc.). These groups are viewed by the international community as being 'freedom fighters', even though they harmed innocents.
- Your second question is actually pretty crucial to this distinction. It seems to me like he is trying to go for social and political change though and not just do it for the sake of breaking the stalemate alone. However, this is debatable! :) Ccg08 (talk) 16:08, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Hm…interesting. Subjectivity is a slippery bastard. And fair point about ending a stalemate being a social change, whether Anders cares about the outcome or not. (It’s kind of like the debate about whether the artist or the audience gets to decide what a piece of art means. But with explosions. And moral relativism.) Which, I suppose, would make the larger debate not about supporting the templars or mages, but supporting the status quo or massive confrontation. Again, interesting.
- Thanks for the food for thought. And (having taken a quick look at your profile) happy belated birthday, Ccg08. HELO (talk) 16:30, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
I am still on the fence over the whole Anders issue, and the now developing Mage-Templar War. But it does now leaves open the door for the Qunari to Invade.--Charlie.look (talk) 13:31, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
Poor old Anders, he gets a bit of hate mail. I think he did the right thing, that blasted chantry nedded to go, all it did was sit on the fence in regards of the mages. Anders had to remove the grand cleric so that things could change. Sometimes war is the only way things can change. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:25, June 19, 2012 (UTC)Darkside
Mostly a reply to Algol, but as I've said multiple times, what the game calls him is irrelevent. Guess what: I don't live in Thedas. In MY terminology, Anders is a terrorist. You can dance around the issue all you like, but at the end of the day, it's still true. RomeoReject (talk) 07:45, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
- And in MY terminology, dogs = drooling idiots. Is it still true? That 'MY' before 'terminology' is kind of crucial word, you know. That is, you can brand him a terrorist from your point of view which is fine, but if you want to debate whether he's objectively a terrorist, your argument is worthless. Also, rphb - discussion is closed? Who died and made you a king of this thread? Dorquemada (talk) 13:02, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
- Lets just look at the definition of terrorism shall we:
- I will like to define terrorism as the following:
- Terrorism: using violence to spread hatred and fear, and to promote a general sense of insecurity among the general population.
- Can you all agree to that definition? If yes, can you all agree that Anders fit in this description? If yes, then the discussion of whether or not he is a terrorist is closed, all that is left is to answer whether or not he is insane, and that have already been answered as positive too, as Anders is a barely contained abomination, and abominations are defined, first and foremost by their insanity.
- In short I think that this discussion is closed.-rphb- (talk) 08:48, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
- @RomeoReject, I mentioned that criticism in my response to Algol already :) @rhpb, you have failed to define a righteous rebel. Look at my response. Ccg08 (talk) 10:11, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
Dorquemada, I think you're treating this like I hold a seperate definition here. My point is that THE definition today (As has been listed multiple times already in this very thread) fits Anders. You can interpret dogs as drooling idiots; That's not the definition of a dog though. RomeoReject (talk) 20:18, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
The above definition is why I do not consider Anders a terrorist; his actions were not done to promote fear, but to start a war. By the above definition then any action committed during a war could be taken as terrorism. Terrorists today seem to attempt to be a deterrent, "Stop what you're doing or this will happen". But Anders didn't want that per se, he wanted no alternative to war; I would compare it to the American signing of the Declaration of Independance. They knew that would start a war, but they felt it was neccesary. Every war has its 'first strike', Anders decided it would be his. Friendlysociopath
Terrorist this, terrorist that. Anders is no terrorist, his action was to cause a war not to promote fear. Those who use violence to make a change are rebels not terrorist. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:04, June 20, 2012 (UTC)Darkside
- Very first line: The systemic use of terror as a means of coercion. That fits Anders' actions pretty damn well. He wanted to incite a fight or flight response in Mages and Templar, and the greater public as a whole. Second line: Violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). This is virtually a word-for-word example of his act. He used a violent act (A bombing) to create fear, perpetrated for the potical/ideological goal of Mage independance; And he deliberately disregarded the safety of non-combatents (Civilians). Hell, based upon the fact that many people (Myself included) consider Ethina and the sisters to be non-combatents. RomeoReject (talk) 01:10, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
While Anders did technically ignore the noncombatants in the chantry it WAS a focus point for his enemy, even if he declared war on them out in the open it would've been attacked at some point. Plus, just because you consider Ethina a noncombat person doesn't mean she is; she is the ranking authority for the templars right? Genuine question, not sarcasm. If her job was to control Meredith then she failed and many mages suffered for it, people have died for much less, but actual military forces have killed noncombat people, sometimes they're just in the way. The Blitz on Britain in WW2, the atomic bomb in Hiroshima; do we call them terrorist? No. The only difference is the state of war. I do not know the exact structure of command of templars but if every sister is in fact a member then they are all technically valid targets. Back to Ethina, she stood by and let Meredith do whatever in her own quest, this was a bad thing. Standing aside and allowing evil to be done is almost as bad as committing the evil act. Ethina bears quite a bit of the blame. Friendlysociopath
- I will agree that my definition was a bit too short yes, but not entirely inadequate. I do not think that traditional warfare can be considered terrorism, even if the goal of an attack is to create terror among the enemies. The reason is that these kinds of attack is not random, and is not done by an invisible enemy. When the enemy is a state it can never be terrorism, as you in that case are in the middle of a war that is theoretical possibly to win. You can always win over a state if the state is destroyed, but you can never destroy as it is done by private individuals. It is a kind of pirating, it is an illegitimate enemy.
- The difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate enemy is that a legitimate enemy fights for someone, a people. It can an established state, (regular warfare, like WWII) or it can be a state in the making (civil war American Revolution). The American rebels where an legitimate enemy to the British empire because the fought for a well defined group of people that lived in a well defined territory that wanted independence. It was because they had a well defined territory that they can be considered rebels and not terrorist.
- Any state, every state needs a territory, In order for a nation to demand independence and become a nationstate it needs to already have a territory. The mages do not have a territory and therefore cannot in the same way as the different separatist movement demand "independence".
- Anders dosn't want the mages to have independence either, he wants them to have freedom, which is totally different.
- Even if it is easy to define a mage in its own right it is not easy to define them as a group. They are not defined as an ethnic group, nor as an ideological ones, rather they are people with certain abilities. Even if we imagined to create a "mage homeland" and shipped all mages there, there would still be born mages outside of it, because it is possibly for nonmage parents to have a mage child. Therefore mages can never have independence the same way as it is possibly for the elves to have independence, and complete and unchecked freedom is not a good thing either, as even a single unchecked magechild can bring disaster to an entire town Conner.
- In short needs to be contained, they can be contained in different ways and by different groups but they cannot have the same freedoms as nonmages.
- I am sure that even in Tevinter, magechildren are forced out of their home and taken to the circle and even there some of them are made tranquil, because they simply cannot have children like Conner running around there. The risk is just too great. Especially in a land such as Tevinter the ruling magistrates would want to keep a close watch over young mages as they are potential treat to them.
- What Anders wants is an impossibility, which is why he is insane, and what he do is unquestionable and act of terror.
- It dosn't matter that he wants to change things, it dosn't matter that he wants to start a war, what matters is that HE wants it, noone else. he dosn't speak or act for a nation and therefore cannot be a rebel.
- And my definition for a rebel is of course:
- A man or a group of men (or women) that acts on behalf of a nation that is somehow perceived to be suppressed. It can be suppressed by a foreign empire, or it can be an independent nationstate where the rulers does not act in accordance with the best interest of the nation, or is not perceived by the rebels to act with the best interest of the nation.
- A rebel must have a clear goal as to what the best interest of the nation is, and to work diligently towards that goal
- To act on behalf of a nation is absolutely critical for anyone in order to be called a rebel. IRA can be said to be rebels as everything they do they do for the nation of Ireland, Al Qaeda on the other hand cannot be said to be rebels as they do not have a nation that they fight for nor do they have any clear goal beyond the creation of terror in the west.-rphb- (talk) 10:09, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
@rhpb, if you are unsatisfied with the more frequently used term 'freedom fighter' instead of righteous rebel than I have to point out that your definition of a rebel is too narrow. It fails to adequately encompass all of the following:
1) Civil resistance, civil disobedience, and nonviolent resistance which do not include violence or paramilitary force.
2) Mutiny, which is carried out by military or security forces against their commanders.
3) Armed resistance movement, which is carried out by freedom fighters, often against an occupying foreign power.
4) Subversion, which are non-overt attempts at sabotaging a government, carried out by spies or other subversives.
5) Terrorism, which is carried out by different kinds of political, economic or religious militant individuals or groups.
I suggest this definition taken from wikipedia: Someone who takes part in a rebellion, uprising, or insurrection; a refusal of obedience or order. I also pulled the above examples from wikipedia as acts of rebellion. Note how this definition encompasses all of the above.
If this is true, in addition to fitting the criteria for terrorism Anders is also a rebel. 'Righteous' appears to be a relatively subjective term. In this way, Whether or not Anders is a righteous rebel depends upon your views regarding the morality of his actions. Either way, logically Anders is both a rebel and a terrorist.
If the alternative definition I have provided is indeed better, then Anders can represent a faction instead of a state and still meet the definition. In this way, your argument regarding the definition of a rebel requiring state membership falls flat. Ccg08 (talk) 08:16, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
- I do not thing your definition of "rebel" is better. Yes it does not include 1, but it do include 3 and it can include 2, 4 and yes in some cases even 5, as I think and that was part of my point, that IRA are also terrorist, that is both rebels and terrorist at the same time. You can be both, because terrorism is a specific means that you use, while rebellion is a specific goal that you aim for.
- And the goal of insuring that your nation is free is a vital and necessary part of being a rebel. I think that the use of violence is also a necessary part of being a rebel, and together they form a sufficient part of being one.
- You cannot be a rebel if you only use non-violence that will just make you a protester or a demonstrator. In many ways this can be more efficient for the "freedom fighters" and more dangerous for the empire, as they cannot in the same way as with armed resistance be justified in using their military to putting it down.-rphb- (talk) 09:41, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
- True, but not in all cases of 2-5 which it should. Anders is fighting so that mages can be free of chantry control throughout Thedas. He is campaigning against authority so that his people can be free. Does this not sound like a rebel to you?
- Protestors and demonstrators can be rebels so long as they DEFY AUTHORITY. When Rosa parks refused to give up her seat on the bus to a white women, she was DEFYING AUTHORITY or in other words REBELLING against authority. I acknowledge that violence frequently is intertwined within the term, but not in all cases. Ccg08 (talk) 10:03, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
- @RomeoReject. My reason for mentioning IRA was that they were both, they used terrorism, but they did it with the alleged goal of serving a nation.
- @Ccg08. I do not think that you are understanding what I am saying is that there are many cases, MANY where a rebel is defidently NOT someone that does either 2-5, they are not, because as I said, if they do not have the GOAL of a rebel, then they are not a rebel, they are something else, but not a rebel, because a rebel is someone that fights for a nation. And because intention is so critical when we talk about rebel you also completely fail with that old Negro story. Rosa parks was tired, she did not have any other and greater intention then just being tired, OTHERS used the Rosa Parks event, some to rebel, but MOST like Martin Luther King, to protest, and to change the system without the use of violance.
- it is not enough to be defiant, you must be violently defiant, and you must be violently defiant with a particular type of goal in order to be a rebel.
- Anders fails of being a rebel, because a rebel serves a nation, serves an entity that can always potentially be "free" and independent. Mages however, do not have the potential of being "free", they have to be watched over, they can be watched over in a nonoppressive way, but they have to be watched.
- Anders's plan does not have a potentially positive outcome. he is like Anders Breivik, just mad. (Actually I cannot understand why anyone hasn't made that comparison before, I mean it is obvious) If you don't know who Anders Breivik is, he is the guy that killed about a hundred young social democrats last year at their annual youth rally in order to "force a change", is what I believe he called it himself.
- you may want to use a definition of rebel that is so broad that it includes even people like him, but then the term would become completely meaningless.
- You see a state can talk to rebels, they can give in to rebels. Take the Tamiloen Tigers for example, the government of Ceylon could give up, and recognise their claim for an independent state, they have not, and I don't think they ever will, but if a state gives up, and allows a rebellion to secede, then they wont have any problems with the rebellion anymore, (not with that rebellion at least).
- Terrorist, on the other hand is someone you can't negotiate with, because terrorist do not want anything specific, terrorist just wants terror for vengeance or hatred, you cannot talk to them because they are not rational individuals, they are not like Anders, any of the Anders - sane.-rphb- (talk) 19:12, June 22, 2012 (UTC)
- I apologise in advance for the large quantity of reading.
- A man or a group of men (or women) that acts on behalf of a nation that is somehow perceived to be suppressed. It can be suppressed by a foreign empire, or it can be an independent nationstate where the rulers does not act in accordance with the best interest of the nation, or is not perceived by the rebels to act with the best interest of the nation. A rebel must have a clear goal as to what the best interest of the nation is, and to work diligently towards that goal=
- A philosophy student must always be willing to acknowledge his mistakes and admit when he is wrong. I acknowledge that the sense in which I was pushing the term 'rebel' in my argument (and my example) was a tad overextended since it is not quite the same as that used within popular culture. I.e. I am willing to concede that a definition of rebellion does not have to cover every one of those examples :) damn you semantics!! XD
- I believe that your definition does largely match the conventional use of the term. However, even using this definition, Anders and his mage REBELLION (sorry, had to!) can meet the criteria.
- 1) Mages are oppressed (and perceive themselves to be oppressed) by authority.
- 2) They are fighting for their freedom.
- 3) Their oppression originates from the chantry which is also their enemy -Arguably the highest authority over Thedas or at the very least closely intertwined with the highest authority over Thedas.
- 4) They do not perceive the chantry to be acting in accordance with the best interest of the nation of Thedas.
- I am guessing if you have any problems it will likely be some technicality over points 3 and 4, like 'the chantry is not a nation'. Just incase, I will argue that they are equivalent in power and size to a nation. The chantry controls the templars which are collectively one of the largest military forces in Thedas (perhaps the largest human military force, but even if not you get it-it's a big army). The chantry also arguably has the greatest influence upon popular opinion. The chantry's laws are deeply intertwined with the laws of just about every human controlled country in Thedas. Furthermore, these laws together with the chantry's templars are what prevents them from being free. If you are still caught up about this technicality, then I shall attempt to appeal to your possible open mindedness: even if you do not believe that mages should be free or even Anders actions, surely you can see that his actions are at the very least tantamount to rebellion? Furthermore if you still do not agree, consider this: The size and power of the chantry is so great and encompasses nearly every nation in Thedas. The mages REBELLION (sorry lol) occurs in these same nations (nearly all of Thedas). If the requirement for being a rebel requires acting in the interests of a nation, surely then such a wide scale REBELLION (COUGH) would be some sort of uber rebellion?
- :Anders fails of being a rebel, because a rebel serves a nation, serves an entity that can always potentially be "free" and independent. Mages however, do not have the potential of being "free", they have to be watched over, they can be watched over in a nonoppressive way, but they have to be watched.=
- Mages can be free and independent by governing themselves. This discussion is thoroughly covered in the thread which I believe is called "Templars and mages". While there is very good reason to believe that it could work, even if it couldn't it is still a logical possibility. There is nothing inherent about being a mage that prevents a mage from being free. Even if this is the wrong decision, it is still possible for them to be free. In this way, your argument that Anders is not a rebel because the faction he represents can never be free fails.
- Anders's plan does not have a potentially positive outcome. he is like Anders Breivik, just mad. (Actually I cannot understand why anyone hasn't made that comparison before, I mean it is obvious) If you don't know who Anders Breivik is, he is the guy that killed about a hundred young social democrats last year at their annual youth rally in order to "force a change", is what I believe he called it himself. =
- While I do see some comparisons (same name and killed innocents) and I agree that Anders is no longer completely sane, your point that their actions had no potentially positive outcome does not apply to Anders because his actions had no chance of creating a better world for the faction he represents; mages.
- :You see a state can talk to rebels, they can give in to rebels. Take the Tamiloen Tigers for example, the government of Ceylon could give up, and recognise their claim for an independent state, they have not, and I don't think they ever will, but if a state gives up, and allows a rebellion to secede, then they wont have any problems with the rebellion anymore, (not with that rebellion at least).=
- So you are saying that if the chantry allowed mages to be free then Anders and his mages would still have rebelled? Please provide evidence or some kind of inference because intuitively this does not seem to be the case.
- Terrorist, on the other hand is someone you can't negotiate with, because terrorist do not want anything specific, terrorist just wants terror for vengeance or hatred, you cannot talk to them because they are not rational individuals, they are not like Anders, any of the Anders - sane.=
- I admit that Anders is not completely sane. However, some terrorists are extremely sane people. Perhaps many have warped ideologies, but they are sane none the less. Of course you can negotiate with terrorists! I am NOT saying it's always or even ever easy, but there are multiple instances in history where negotiations have been made with terrorists. I would also argue that terrorists do not just want to spread terror for hatred or vengeance but often have a goal in mind. Would you argue that a rebellion (even by your defintion) which spreads terror through the general population to overthrow a political power would not be classified as terrorists? Furthermore and most importantly, Anders is not creating chaos because he wants to create chaos. Anders wants things to actually change for mages and for many reasons (Justice, his own feelings and likely others) he acted in such a way that was apparently guaranteed to change things for his people. -Ccg08 (talk) 22:07, June 22, 2012 (UTC)