FANDOM


This Forum has been archived

Visit Discussions
Forums: Index > Game Discussion > SPOILERS: Do you agree with what Anders did?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2656 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

Do you agree with Anders' decision to blow up the chantry? Personally, I agree with him. The mages had been prisoners and treated poorly for hundreds of years, and Anders knew that the current conflict would end up being resolved and nothing would change. He blew up the chantry to make sure that things would change, for better or worse. Sure he murdered hundreds of innocents, but that's a small sacrifice for preventing thousands and thousands of mages being held in captivity for their whole life.64.55.111.178 (talk) 04:29, March 21, 2011 (UTC)Trader347

I don't think he killed innocents - maybe a few, but most of the people there were all members of the Chantry, and thus direct supporters of the templar regime. I would do whatever it takes to get rid of the templars - I'm just pissed there was no 'assassinate Meredith' option and that I didn't get to kill Cullen. Elthina too - she could have done so much to ease the mages' plight and she just sat there. To me, she and all her people were no better than Meredith's accomplices and I was glad to see them blown sky high.76.180.192.82 (talk) 02:00, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that he was evil i think he was kind of tired of the stalemate between Meredeth and Orsino. As he said, " I removed the chance of compromise because there can be no compromise." he simply realized that there was no point in arguing and debating about this topic if no one would do anything about it. That said I don't agree with his methods and how he used Hawke and I don't think he had to go that far but then again if you guys can see no better way then don't call him a monster.

I strongly disagree with him. Nothing can justify his action. Why didn't he blow up the Templar Hall instead? He even met the Grand Cleric, he knew she has nothing against him or mages. He's just a terrorist, but he helped me make up my mind after all. The moment I saw his crime, I sided with the templars immediately. Well, too bad that crazy hag Meredith betrayed me in the end too. Hpa tqn (talk) 04:50, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

He probley would've but the mages are kept alongside the Templars.CrowInvictus (talk) 21:14, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
Actually if you spoke to Elthina, she believed the templars were right, although she did admit that Orsino had some points. In any case, she was in a position to order Meredith to ease up on the mages, and she refused. I also find it interesting that you think that the templars must be right simply because you disagree with one mage, who isn't even one of Orsino's. Even if someone disagreed with Anders' methods I can't see how that justifies the templar's side.76.180.192.82 (talk) 02:00, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, with all those blood mages killing innocents and demons running all over Kirkwall, Meredith is right no doubt. I didn't side with the templars just because of Anders' crime. I sided with them because if I had to choose between 2 evil forces, I would always let the less dangerous ones alive, to easily stop them in case things get out of hands. You can't just let a bunch of people with abilities to destroy anything they want, summons demons and control people to their will roam free. Humans tend to do evil things if they have power in their hands, very few can restrain themselves.Hpa tqn (talk) 05:17, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

No. while i usually side with the mages, the basic fact remain that given enough freedom, mages can get very very dangerous. the incident at the circle from DAO proves this, the havoc that Connor causes proves this. i am not saying that it is right not imprison them, no it is not but even the First Enchanter Orsino turned to crazy blood magic. i am just saying that while mages should not be treated like they were being in kirkwall but absolute freedom from mages will spell disaster (as shows by Triventer where all but powerful suffer). What Anders did was definately not justified. YES, mages were being oppressed in kirkwall but by his actions were completely over the line (though i do comment him for not resorting to blood magic)ABV (talk) 04:54, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

The event in DA:O was a result of templar oppression. Uldred's only goal, as confirmed by one of the Blood Mages you meet in the Tower and by the fact that he is a Libertarian, was to break free from the Chantry. In fact, most of the mages in Thedas who resort to Blood Magic seem to do this exactly because of Templar oppression. As Anders remarks upon in DA2, Act III, almost all of the remaining Rogue Mages turns to Blood Magic only because they deem it necessary to survive. And as Merrill clearly states, there is nothint inherently evil about Blood Magic. In a way, as with a sword, it is only the hand that wields it that can be treacherous. In fact, the main reason that it is so dangerous in contemporary Thedas is that almost all knowledge of it have been repressed by the Chantry, making communication and deals with demons the only way to learn it properly. While the Templars serve a necessary function, the one of hunting down Mages who are a threat to others, there is absolutely NO justifiable reason to lock up EVERY Mage, as this seem to create more harm than safety. And to address the issue of Anders, while his action basically makes him a terrorist, a fact that he seem to acknowledge, his actions might be justified by the fact that it made it impossible to go back to the Status Quo, which in the long run would have been harmful to the Mages. As much as he acknowledge his action of being despicable and inhuman, he does deem it a necessary sacrifice, and is ready to face the consequences. In the end, while I cannot say that I agree with the nature of his actions (I do not believe he even does so himself), I cannot, and neither could he, see any other way of ending the status quo ("because the status... is not quo", Doctor Horrible). The problem is that the event will be used to justify the need of locking up every Mage and throwing away the key, as Meredith already did. -->Emil Olai (talk) 22:20, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
True, mages have lots of power but... in Thedas, a strong mage isn't really any stronger than a skilled swordsman. Even the abominations that you face, despite the way everyone tells you that mages are a danger because they can be possessed, are pretty much run of the mill stuff. And, if mages had freedom, they would be self-policing, in a sense - I think most evil mages would be killed or captured by all the others pretty quickly (the same way that evil swordsmen get hunted down by other swordsmen in Thedas). I don't think the Templars would even be needed to hunt the mages, if the mages were free. In any case, I think the Grand Cleric was ultimately an enemy of the mages and that in any war there are casualties. Anders at worst picked a poor method for attacking her, but that ***** definitely needed to die. Really though, most of the people in the Chantry were probably supporters of the Chantry's anti-mage stance, and could hardly be considered innocent victims.76.180.192.82 (talk) 02:00, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
I find it to be a lovely idea, to let mages police themselves, with a company of Templars who could serve as a control organ for the organisation. Mages would be even better mage hunters then templars, as they wield the same weapons as, well, themselves. And, for even more effectiveness, why cannot Templars and Mages cooperate, working together, as Ser Thrask's project clearly proves possible. -->Emil Olai (talk) 12:56, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

I dont agree with what he did but I understand why he did. Elthina could only temporarily halt the war. Anders believed the war was inevitable and wanted to get it over with. I tend to side with the mages, but execute anders. He is just not quite the same person he used to be. Crimpycracker (talk) 05:22, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Nope. What Anders did would in real world be considered an act of terrorism. I always support mages, but I always kill Anders first.IP no. 59.95.169.10 (talk) 05:36, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

I honestly believe that while the act itself was terrible, it was for the greater good. If he had not done something BIG to upset people, things would continue as they had for the last few centuries. He needed to ensure an all out war so that change would come. And I know theres the concern of giving mages too much freedom, but it seems like 95% of the bad mages in DA are evil because of what the templars were doing. 64.55.111.178 (talk) 05:42, March 21, 2011 (UTC) Trader347


I disagree with what he did for various reasons. More importantly to me, it strikes as a strong contrast to his reaction to Wynne's message that she delivered to the Warden in Awakenings. Obviously circumstances (in this case, the spirit of Justice) cause people to change, but I did not like what I perceived to be the complete revision of Anders that occurred in DA2.

I actually felt the conversation with Anders and Wynne quite out of character for Anders. He himself refused to live under Chantry control; I found it strange he wanted other mages to continue to do so.76.180.192.82 (talk) 02:00, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

All Anders did was alienate many that were sympathetic to the mage's plight in the first place, as well as reinforcing the stereotypes of mages in the DA2 universe. Justin Harris (talk) 05:58, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


i agree with what he did because it was necessary for his ultimate objective, a revolution, which is an act of change or opposition against a certain power or constitution, ultimately turning it around, something like that requires heavy measures, you don't just go somewhere and scream "Hey, i'm making a revolution, just so you know" if lives most be sacrificed for something bigger, then so be it. you guys are not getting it...

Not all revolutions need to be bloody, the commonwealth states (those that were part of the Britsh Empire and didn't rebel) didn't.CrowInvictus (talk) 21:18, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

The brittish commonwealth states didn't gain independence without bloodshed... The USA had a long, bloody war, many, many thousands died for independence of India, despite no actual war, including over one thousand deaths during the 1919 Amritsar massacre, and others. The whole point of Ghandi was to rebel, rebel with bloodshed, but have the blood be on the British's hands. The holdings England had in the middle east, Jordan, Iraq, Palistine, all fell with huge bloodshed. Then all of the African wars with the Zulu and other African Nations. The only independence that was achieved with minimal bloodshed was Australia, and Australia was to far away from England to have any real profits or purpose. Australia was the only commonwealth to gain independence without a true rebelion, but they were basically independent long before the 1990's or whenever they truly achieved Independence because the British had so little influence on them. As much as I disagree with Anders actions, the innocent lives lost, the chantry, its all nessecary to make something happen. There is no revolution that has no spark, nothing that does not come with a price. Think of a government as a molecule. If someone needs to break the bonds of a molecule, they need energy. The only thing with enough energy to break the bonds of a government is blood. Blood is the energy of man. It is messed up and foul, but the only thing powerful enough to cause a change, a reaction, is blood. That is what Anders needed, that is what the blood mages and abomonations needed,energy to break the bonds of the templars. --WardenChanmpion (talk) 05:43, March 29, 2011 (UTC)


He was a terrorist. There's no other way to describe it. Like many others I sided with the mages but executed Anders first, then had Bethany join the party again. (sorry forgot to sign) Mondrak (talk) 07:00, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


  • Sigh* and yet another example of how ******** some people are, not listening to reason, even when there wrong
Please explain to me how I am not listening to reason and why I am wrong? As far as I was concerned I was allowed an opinion. Mondrak (talk) 07:26, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with what Anders did, which was vile and evil, and served to accomplish nothing but mass death and destruction on the innocent. It is a great weakness of the game that it constantly undercut sympathy for the mages by showing them as always turning to murder and blood magic to get their way (is there no mage with morals in Kirkwall?) while most of the "fanatical" Templars are shown to be reasonable once you sit down and talk with them (except Meredith, who had the misfortune of being a plot point rather than a character.) It also hurt the story that it did not play up more the fact the templars are as much slaves as the mages, due Chantry due to the church's practice of making them lyrium addicts, as revealed in DAO.

First off I would like to say that I read a post about someone being wrong and not listening to reason. These are opinions and by definition CANNOT be right or wrong. Reasoning is based on perception and opinions are also based off the same thing. Perception differs from person to person therefore as I stated a couple lines up. It is not right or wrong. Now to my actual opinion. To start a revolution a major event had to take place. You hardly ever hear of a silent coup. Anders' plan to make a big start to the revolution was good. His execution however was not. The Chantry Has no more control over the templars as the templars have over the mages. The Devine has a huge army of templars. What's to stop them from saying, "Screw you, Devine. We fight." Meaning weather you are a templar under the command of The Devine, or a mage under the thumb of the templars. You can choose weather or not to be out from under their respected control. The difference is The templars in Kirkwall had a leader who was nuttier then squirrel poop and it was her leadership that bought what could be an exalted march on Kirkwall. So the question would be: Why didn't Anders simply pop off the knight commander. I believe it was shock value. Pop off the knight commander and you have templars on your butt from one end of thedas to another. Take out someone directly under the divine. Not only do you get the templars' attention and possibly fear, but the attention and possible fear of everyone. To Anders I believe he saw the passive approach of respecting the mages wasn't working. So he decided to make people fear them so they wouldn't try anything. Killing off a Grand Claric would definately do that. I DO NOT condone what he did. I can see why he did it, but I do NOT condone it. GreyWolf84 (talk) 08:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

No I completely not agree to what Anders did to the chantry. You don't have to blow and kill innocent people just so that you can make people see the truth while the templars have a good reason for making the mages prison on the circle you don't have to treat mages like animals there also human beings and while some mages are completely insane (due to want of power) that doesn't mean that all of them are insane. So if someone would ask if which of the two is right Anders or Fenris then the will be that both of them are right but both of them are also wrong.

Its like what Isabela said, "Justice is an idea, it makes sense in a world of ideas, but not our world." Anders destroyed the Chantry to ensure that there would be war, to ensure that things would change, for better or worse. I would side with the mages, but I would kill Anders. Like what Duncan said, "Death is never easy to accept, especially when it arrives in such brutal fashion."


With things as bad as they were, to start a war he didn't need to do anything! Look at how fast the first enchanter turned to the most self-destructive of Blood-Magics. With the Knight-Commander being possessed or close enough and the First Enchanter being that ready to take extreme action, the situation in the Gallows would have exploded into a war no matter what. Before Anders did what he did the world was already looking to kirkwall, so it already would have spread. The Revolution was by that point inevitable, his being remembered as the match to the powder keg wasn't, his selfish thirst for blind vengeance against 'the system' wasn't.

As he says when you kill him, what matters to him is that his name, his actions will be remembered as the revolution. He didnt start the war. He claimed it, Justice might have well been a Pride Demon as it wasn't about what was right, it wasnt about 'Ends Justify the Means' it was about Anders putting himself in the history books, it an act of unforgivable terrorism for Vanity and Vanity alone. Maybe he had tricked himself into thinking there was a reason for it in the years and years of planning, but when he started planning he didn't know about kirkwall, he came to kirkwall to give him the stage for his atrocity. He did what he did to be famous, partly to bring a war but it was a war that was coming and would happen whether he was there or not. He just made sure that he would be the one to start it, so he could be remembered as starting, and maybe alittle because he enjoyed it as well. It wasnt for the cause, but for himself. Absentmindedtiger (talk) 13:50, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


Yeah I sided with Anders and let him live, if you were oppressed your entire life for something you can't control, would you do anything to save other people like you? I would. It's like racism, he just wanted to bring it all to a boiling point and start a revolution. There weren't that many people there anyway, and the Grand Cleric doing nothing was just as crooked as supporting the Templars. That's my take on it, anyway.--75.108.168.149 (talk) 14:09, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


Morally? No, what Anders did was indefensible. Even he knew it was a terrible thing to do, and he outright says that he expected he would have to die for it. The Grand Cleric, though mostly ineffectual, was a good and innocent woman. She and the others in there clearly didn't deserve to die.

Tactically? No, I can't defend Anders on that point, either, though I can see what he was trying to do. Leave Elthina alive, she would arrange some sort of compromise which would maintain that status quo of the Circles, perhaps by reforming the Kirkwall Circle so that it more closely resembled Ferelden's Circle, which (aside from the Uldred fiasco) was like a happy little summer camp in comparison. But that resolution would still be unacceptable to Anders.

What Anders needed was crazy old Meredith, unrestrained by Elthina or Chantry law. He figured he would give Meredith an excuse to invoke the Right of Annulment, so that when the world saw the templars butchering the Kirkwall Circle more or less without justification (since the Circle wasn't even involved in the bombing of the Chantry) the other Circles would rise up. Which they did.

So Anders' plan was entirely successful, as far as that goes.

However, Anders' plan for the mages amounts to "be free or die," with no middle ground. By blowing up the Chantry and starting a massive war across all of Thedas he more or less eliminated any goodwill the mages might have had up until that point with the general populace. And suppose the mages do win, crush the templars and Chantry, and remain free. What then? Anders' plan fails to provide for any way for the mages to police themselves against the blood magic and demons that Anders himself so hates. And who knows how many mages will end up embracing blood magic or getting possessed and becoming abominations during this chaos? Way to break it, Anders.

In my first playthrough, my Hawke bitched Anders out for what he did but spared his life. Anders had, after all, saved Bethany's life in this play through. Besides which, my Hawke had spared the lives of almost everyone she could up to that point (Idunna, Alain, Bartram, Fenris' evil sister, etc.) so killing her good friend Anders... even after his appalling act of terrorism... would have seemed out of character. I even kept him around, but I really wished there was a dialogue option to say "You're only here so you can fix your damned mess and atone for what you did, you stupid, stupid bastard." --DarkAger (talk) 14:20, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


What Anders did was totally unforgivable in my book. Yes, the mages have a bad lookout, especially in Kirkwall, and yes, I tend to side with the mages if only because Meredith's response to Anders' action is also considerably over-the-top. But what makes Anders' action 'unforgivable' in my book (and also precludes my viewing Anders as a 'revolutionary') is that his is an act of destruction with no other purpose than to be an atrocity.

IMO, a revolutionary may engage in terribly destructive acts but it's done so with the purpose of building a new 'better' way or society. My problem with Anders is that aside from a rather ill-defined desire to give mages their 'freedom', he has no vision or plan of how mages can interact peaceably and responsibly with the rest of the people of Thedas if they are liberated from the constraints of the Circle. And lets face it, outside of the Hawke family, there's hardly a mage in the entire game with whom I'd be comfortable seeing free of any supervision! So without a specific plan or vision of a post-Circle future for mages that might have given Anders' act of destruction any larger 'constructive' meaning, his act is one of terrorism and, IMO, evil. Before I executed Anders, he made the comment that he would be remembered as a martyr and I desperately wanted to retort 'No, not a martyr but a murderer'. Qalanalt (talk) 14:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


I agree with the old geezer.Sure he killed some Chantry(a very rude word),but those Chantry(a very rude word) needed to pay the price for their evils.And I do not like mages,either. Hexlord (talk) 15:09, March 21, 2011 (UTC) --->Hexlord


I agree with the majority. Anders is a fanatic, a zealot, with no real desire to do anything besides cause destruction. Anytime someone sees a group of people as "the enemy", there's no real reasoning going on there. Not all templars are evil. Not all mages are evil. But there's no doubt that some of each are. If Hawke used his reasoning, he/she would have executed Anders afer the blood mage killed his/her mother. Isn't Anders, as a mage, responsible for the actions of all mages?

Like so many others mentioned, setting the mages free who have lived in the Circle their entire lives is not necessarily a kindness. Where are they going to go? What will they do? How will they function independently? What if they're just feared and reviled by the public? Aren't there better ways to "help" them than by provoking the Knight Commander into trying to have them all killed??? Even Orsino didn't agree with what he did.

And to top it all off, he uses Hawke's friendship/love to manipulate him/her into becoming an accessory to murder. I would have done far worse than kill him if I could have... 98.177.254.197 (talk) 22:02, March 21, 2011 (UTC)Dani98.177.254.197 (talk) 22:02, March 21, 2011 (UTC)



What he did was wrong and i dont agree with it. When it happened i really didnt know what to think. I romanced him and i was all for team anders. Dont get me wrong i didnt hate him or anything i just wish he would of said something to me about it. I prolly would of willingly helped him! i really feel for the mages in that game. I think they should be freed and not trapped like rats. And i really liked the grand cleric in the game as well. for being a person of high stature in a church, she was very level headed. Either way anders is always going to be my favorite so he could do whatever and i will be right there. i feel like i owe it to him for all the help he gave me during the game. it really meant a lot to me when he didnt turn against me in the fade like everyone else did. plus what he did for my sister in the tunnels. and a few more reasons. I will never kill him in any of my play throughs so sebastian can throw all the fits he wants. ElleOnemillion (talk) 22:31, March 21, 2011 (UTC)EllOnemillion


If Anders had told me, "Shoot, you're only killing a man." I would've spared his life. He was a companion, and there was some lingering loyalty from Awakening. I didn't. What Anders did was wrong. He was wrong to blow up the Chantry, wrong to force Hawke into an extreme solution, and wrong to support mages that could not be trusted under any circumstances. Nearly every mage, with the exception of Bethany and perhaps Hawke (based on your character build), would use blood magic, become an abomination and consort with demons freely. Sweet, innocent Merill murdered her clan over artifacts. Previously charming, funny Anders murdered nuns and monks, and innocent civilians/refugees. This is the same Chantry that saved hundreds of children and refugees in Fereldan, kept idol-possessed Meridith in check, and renounced Sister Peatrice. Non-companion mages who would seem to be a voice of wisdom are no better. The reasonable apostates who went free could come back and use blood magic on your siblings. Even Orsino, who seems reasonable up front, has spent his time collecting the demonic summons from the psychopath that murdered Hawke's mother. He also sends Hawke to kill reasonable, mage-loving Templars -- either indirectly or for an ulterior purpose.

What Anders is advocating is a life free of checks and laws governing the mages, not freedom. Freedom would be accomplished by killing or healing idol-crazy Meredith, replacing her with Cullen or Thrask, and taking the middle ground. Cullen frequently skirts around Templar rules and stands up to Meredith. Thrask encourages apostates, when the Circle is not fit for the individual mage. This is reminiscient of the Templar Carver who freely abetted and helped Hawke's apostate father escape. Sometimes the Circle does work. The mages in Fereldan were for the most part happy. Wynne even supported it.

Even if you think Anders was misguided, and maybe the circumstances at Kirkwall warranted some great action, he's still struggling with possession. Vengeance is not Justice. Letting him live also warrants future repercussions from kingdoms like Staarkhaven, the general non-magical populace, and the remaining Chantry and Templars. --24.12.136.18 (talk) 19:39, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

This whole argument can go both ways. Magi are mistreated, feared, regarded with hate, suspicion, and violence. Every race has its own way of dealing with Magi, all of them exteme, save for the Dalish who are the only ones that allow for freedom. The Humans are the ones who 'lock the Elves and Men away' in towers, and the Qunari who keep them on leashes and cut out their tongues etc. etc. However, I would have to side with the Chantry, for the simple reason that every instance regarding un-supervised Magi has led to destruction. The most obvious of reasons would be the Tevinter Empire. An entire empire build on the foundations of a magical aristocracy, and look what happens! Assuming you believe that the Tevinter Magi were the cause of the Darkspawn coming into this world, then you don't need anything more. The greatest threat to Thedas today came from meddling Magi. Next we observe the catastrophes in Origins. Connor, the young, chipper son of the Arl of Redcliffe, shows signs of magical ability. Next thing you know, he's possessed, causing mass destruction, killing innocents, raising their corpses, and generally being an all around cocksure ass. Now let's look at the Circle Tower: They get a taste of freedom everyone knows they should never have, and when they are denied this freedom, out comes a Pride Demon and next thing you know abominations run rampant and start the most annoying cleanup of the entire game. Now we move into DA2, where Anders, your bud, your rock, the wind beneath your healing wings, is blowing up the Chantry in some psycho vigilante scheme. No... Just no. It isn't even Justice, it's pure Vengeance to kill innocents like that and i'm supposed to side with him?--Reese777 (talk) 19:56, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree with Anders methods, but I see where he's coming from. Mages are mistreated everywhere in Thedas, are oppressed, torn from their families, and the templars force the hand of many an apostate. 95% of them only turn to blood magic to stand up to the templars. They could simply have a templar base in every town that would chase down any reports of a mage abusing power. And if you say that it's easier to monitor them when they're in one place, it's not. Templars chase apostates far and wide anyway, on a regular basis. My solution to Meredith, assassination. Seriously. Anders could have asked, and I would have said yes in a heartbeat. I would've distracted her and he would have planted smaller explosives in her office.

i agree with anders because he is a mage that stands up for his people because no one else can, the templars just think that mages are a plaque in the world and cannot live without being watched. If the templars wanted to the would somehow try to make an agreement to which the templars cannot fully control what the mages do with their lives but if blood magic is proven then the mage would be caught and taken to the circle which would be like a coreectional facility. why not punish just the blood mages and not the whole mage population. also, i wish there was a spell like the one anders unleashed on the chantry cuz that was sum bada** s!@# 69.57.21.120 (talk) 21:05, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Anders action was mass murder nothen short of it. His intentions were noble but he still deserved death. However, Meredith turned around and tried to dot he samething. I stood with the mages so that tthe templars crime would come to light (kicking and screeming if I had to.)CrowInvictus (talk) 21:14, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

The man talked Justice into remaining on Thedas when he abandoned his first host, moved to a foreign city where he was anonymous, created a terrorist cell, and (the moment he had a Champion to call on) used him/her to gather ingredients for fire-bombing a church.

He fire-bombed. A church. Filled with nuns.

Tevinter shows what happens when the mages supplant the Chantry... they govern exactly the same way. There's even a codex entry, describing how children with talent are snatched away by the authorities and the parents are never told what their eventual fate is.

Again... he fire-bombed a church. Not a Templar military holding. A church.

Anders could more than easily enough used you for cover for blowing up Templar lyrium deposits, armories, communications hubs, etc., etc. But no. The target he chose was one of no military value. A church. A church! Futonrevoltion

From what I've gathered the Chantry trains and controls the Templars and through them it controls the Circle. When you take that into account, is it really surprising that Anders wants to blow it up? I sided with the mages and let Anders live, I think he went slightly overboard but has the right idea in general. Besides he's still Anders no matter how much he's changed, honestly I think he'll do a better job punishing himself than my Hawke ever could.


he didnt blow up the chantry because he thought it was guilty or deserving, he blow up the Chantry because it made peace possible and he wanted war. Because it could solve the problem through compromise and he wanted it solved through the death of thousands. it was about what he wanted, not anything the Chantry or even the templars did, the situation could have been solved any number of ways, Anders didnt want it solved he wanted it to blow up into a war. Not to free the mages, but to destroy the people who are vaguely connected to the people who once, in his mind anyway, enslaved him. He is an utterly selfish person, he says so many times throughout both games, in DA2 he has managed to convince himself that he is doing it for unselfish reasons but that isnt true, its personal vengeance against people who had nothing to do with his youth being killed because he has built up against over what is essentially being sent away to boarding school without his consent. He doesnt care about other mages, he has distaste for others who escape the chantry and he hates circle mages more than he hates templars. He only cares about himself, he blew up the Chantry so there would be a war, so he would remembered for all time as the Matyr of the Mages who started it, He was an Abomination, not of Justice, but of Vengeance corrupted into destruction. Absentmindedtiger (talk) 00:00, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't agree with you. I think he is a very kind person who tried to stick with what he believed in no matter the consequenses. Call that selfish if you want, but I respect his conviction and if there was an option to make him tell you what he was up to, I would have helped him anyway. Also Elthina couldn't (or wouldn't) stop the war if she had lived or not so I don't think you're right in saying there could have been a compromise. The best she did throughout the game was delay the increasingly inevitable conflict between templars and mages. Blowing up the Chantry didn't start it, it just sped things up and it ensured that there would be change, better or worse, and in Anders' words 'Now we can all stop pretending' . Personally I think Anders did everyone a favor by forcing us to skip the Cold War and get straight to the good stuff. ---

It doesn't matter if it was a church. I would commend his actions all the same if it was an orphanage, a hospital, or indeed the hall of the templars. He is a man who had a worthy goal, to alleviate the paradoxical oppression of the clearly superior population of mages, and set out to accomplish it in any way he could. I am very impressed at his resolve. His actions are the kind which would leave their mark on history, though secretly in my own vision for the DA2 universe, my characters are the only ones who should wield the power of magic. All the lesser mages need to die, even if I helped them just to keep Anders on my side. 67.171.164.14 (talk) 00:34, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree with Loghain then? He did what he thought was right just the same as Anders. So waht if it was the king or even the Grey Wardens that died, from what you said victims don;t matter. The goal that the action takes is all that matters. Sorry but the way you made it sound, it's a devil may care attitude that says to hell with the consqeunces of ones actions. Anders killed inoccents to star a war. No matter how noble one's intentions that is unforgivable. That is never right or just.04:18, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

My two cents: Anders is a terrorist, stupid and a hypocrite. His actions prove all the Chantry zealots and anti-mage groups correct and does nothing to further his own cause of showing mages should govern themselves and aren't to be feared. While Anders doesn't technically fall to demons and blood magic he is like Uldred and the blood mages in DAO. His goal for autonomy and freedom are noble and worthy, his methods are vile and counter-productive. Also Justice should have killed himself after the event. Seriously. That he doesn't only cements how corrupt he's become. This is a mess and will have set the movement for acceptance and freedom for mages back innumerably. I don't envy Hawke or whatever hero it is in DA3 having to deal with this horror. The saddest thing is that the tools were in place for a peaceful, gradual change to the system. Level headed people existed on both sides, the story and side quests show this. Sure there are zealots on both sides too, but this dichotomy will always exist in everything. Change doesn't have to be brutal and quick. It can be gradual and peaceful. Anders and those of his ilk are cursed with terribly unfortunate short-sightedness. --Zambingo (talk) 00:57, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

that gradual and peaceful change was possible is why Andres did it, he admits it. He didnt want the Mages life made easier, he blew up the chantry because it contained the person who had the best chance of mediating a peaceful end to the crisis and the humane, just and fair treatment of mages. So he killed her, because he only wanted a war. He didnt do it to save the mages but to start a war. If he wanted to save the mages he would have brought the Grand Cleric to the Gallows. All he wanted was a War and he says so himself, he killed her because he couldnt risk her solving the problem peacefully, if he did he would get to be a matyr. and being a matyr is all he cares about. not the mages, not any cause, not human life. just his own legacy and the knowledge that because of him hundreds will die.Absentmindedtiger (talk) 02:34, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
I didn't agree with Anders' decision, when he blew up the church I wanted to yell at him for being an idiot. All he did was reinforce the view that mages are too dangerous for their own good. His decision caused a revolution that needed to happen at the cost of lives that had next-to-nothing to do with the conflict. Despite all of this, however, I respect his decision. He only sped the inevitable.
What we all need to remember is how different Kirkwall's mage situation is from the other areas in the games. In Kirkwall there has been years upon years of savage repression of mages by the templars. As a result of this, almost all of the mages that have been free in the area are incredibly young, dalish, or have turned to demons in some way. In order to maintain independence from the prison, in all but name, that was the Kirkwall circle they needed protection to a ridiculous amount, whether it be a clan, extreme power, or simply a mother's love.
In DA:O the mages have been granted a moderate amount of freedom and, as a result, the extreme measures in Kirkwall are almost unseen. Connor was a young child with no idea of his great gift and can't be held responsible for his interactions with demons, he simply didn't know any better. The destruction that was caused was the fault of the demon, not the mage. The condemnation of mages in these areas result in their fear of the unknown combined with a misinterpretation of the scripture in regards to magic and its mastery. The people of Thedas saw a different individual with a power that threatened their position in life and they then proceeded to repress that individual on the grounds that magic should server man based off scripture. The problem: it is more likely that the passage is referring to controlling the fade and not giving in to temptation rather than repressing the gift of magic as a whole.
The difference between these two areas clearly place the blame for the high amount of blood mages in Kirkwall on the templars. Mages are human/elven and as a result they have their own dreams and wills that are brutally repressed and/or destroyed by the people who view them as beasts to be leashed rather than individuals. Mages like Merril and Anders are the only hope of their kind for a world where mages are not condemned for their greatest gifts. Fenris' insistence that mages are all demented slavers like Danarius is no
Anders' act of mass destruction was a logical result of the Templars' actions. They assumed blood magic of all they found and refused any form of reason in response; in response the mages got more and more desperate and, in Anders' case, angry. In the end, Anders blew up a church (the closest thing to the templars) plunging the world in to a power struggle between the Chantry and the mages. While I don't like what he did, Anders did what needed to be done, so I spared him and fought with the mages in the final battle. While I don't know about the rest of you, but I will also stand with the circle in their battle against the Chantry and the Templars.

Absentmindedtiger - Grand Cleric Ethena couldn't have solved the situation peacefully. if she could she had her chance for the three years Meredith was in power (since the start of the game, so add another 7 years). Anders considered her spineless and cowardly in how she left matters in Merediths hands. So your arguement was flawed. Anders didnt kill the Cleric to prevent a chance at peace. He believed war was enevitable and the Grand Cleric was misusing her powers by not solving it. He even saw her as selfish for caring more about the will of an invisible god then the suffering of many, very visible mages. In fact, the Grand Cleric only stepped in once in the game to gently tell both Meredith and Orsino off like bickering children. It did not solve the problem and embarassing them in such a puplic way probably only contribued to the growing tentions. So you cannot say without reasonable doubt Anders' motives were as selfish as you say.--Ironreaper (talk) 06:07, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

I sided with the mages because of Bethany, not because I liked Anders or agreed with his actions. (Anders in Awakening was funny, Anders in DAII was whiny- Like half the DAII cast- Merrell, Carver, Anders, Fenris all they did was whine) The problem with the current relationship between Templars & Mages is that its antagonistic instead of symbiotic.

The only reason everyone in Thedas isn't reciting the Qun is because of mages, something everyone conveniently seems to forget. I was disappointed when Thrask was murdered, but many of these Blood Mages would never have been created if Meredith hadn't been a tyrant. I hope one of the options in a future DA game is to create a more balanced Chantry between mage freedoms & protecting the public- One of the faults of DAII is that it was ridiculously linear, which is not how it was sold by Bioware. Magor88 (talk)

You know what's funny? I am actually working on a Historical play right now about John Brown, who used violent means to end slavery just before the American Civil War. I beat DA2 a few days ago, and when the Anders scene came up, I immediately made the connection. All of the issues you all have brought up in this thread are issues that John Brown's raid at Harpers Ferry speak to. Do the ends justify the means? And when do we know when the appropriate time for violence is? Personally, I see John Brown as a Hero. But I think Anders was wrong. For one, we have no idea how much of that decision was Anders (I want to fight for my fellow mages and eventually spark the conflict that will free them), versus how much of it was "Justice," who at best was a stark personification of principles without context, and at worst was a malevolent demon claiming to be a "spirit." Secondly, Anders was claiming to help his people, but in doing so he only proved what the Templars have been saying all along. He's sort of like Magneto of X-Men fame. If people say your "race" are awfully and unavoidably dangerous, and then you deliberately kill a bunch of innocent people, then you ARE dangerous, and you lend credence to their oppression. Thirdly, he didn't have to do what he did. Can someone refresh me on the timeline? Did Meredith use the Right of Annulment before or after Anders' attack? This has bearing on the argument. But ultimately, he could have used all of that incredible energy to kill Meredith, saving Hawke a long and frustrating boss battle in the process. Two quick thoughts before I wrap it up: First- it would be interesting to really look at this question the other way: do you think that the Templars are right in keeping a leash on the mages knowing what they can succomb to, and knowing what they are capable of as proven by Anders. Second- would any of these things be an issue if Hawke had assumed power as the Viscount, not just in title, but actually established a strong government, and used his influence and strength to check the Templars. Makes an interesting case for dictatorship, huh? (posted by "X" March 23, 2011 @ 8:17EST)

I agree with it but only to a point. Don't get me wrong the whole blowing the chantry sky high was the best part in the game...But I think Anders went about it the wrong way. I think by blowing up the chantry just made the whole situation worse. I do agree as to why he did it. There can be no comprimise. Because if there was then it will eventually go back to the way it was before. The only reason these mages are turning to blood mage and all that happy crap is because they are feeling pressured and they want freedom. They will turn to anything and everything to get it. I think that if they game the mages a bit more freedom then they wouldn't have to turn to other means to get it. Emmalee (talk) 13:05, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Can we all agree at least it was an awesome scene?--Ironreaper (talk) 14:12, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, it was fantastic, and the fact that it has been a matter of huge debate, Bioware are probably rubbing their hands in glee thinking they did a great job piulling on the morals of the public. Outstanding. Mondrak (talk) 15:48, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

From an in-game point of view, I agree completely with Anders. Seing how hellbent everyone seems to be that mages can't have all the same rights as any other human just because of their potential to cause harm has convinced me that the only way they will actually attain them is if they themselves were in power. One of the obvious ways to do this is of course to beat the templars in an open war, which is what Anders was aiming for with the destruction of The Chantry.

If I were not roleplaying, I'd of course disagree heartily with what he did, both on the principle that the taking of civilian lives never can be means to do anything, and also that he is encouraging warfare, which in my eyes is one of (if not THE most) the most pointless and self destructive activities we humans engage in.

That's my opinion anyway. -Odecey --81.166.26.159 (talk) 17:06, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Anders! Blow up the chantry, destroy the templar order and take all who oppose the mages down. Soon we will march on Val Royaux itself and bring the bring chaos to Orlais!

Not quite. The templars broke off from the chantry to hunt the mages, so you'll probably need the Chantry's support to stop the chaos. So you'll probably be working as or with the Seekers.


I was actually starting to believe that Anders could be my favorite character in the series, but then he went and did this. This actually really pissed me off because i originally liked him, and then he went and betrayed me, and murdered innocent people. Excuse me if im being rash, but he is a parallel to Osama Bin laden, as he committed terrorism for his beliefs. Bin Laden doesnt like Americans in the middle east = Terrorism. Anders hating templars = Terrorism. Terrorism is never the answer to anything, and it only makes things worse. All it did was show that mages are dangerous, and that one killed the grand cleric, who was the most loved citizen of Kirkwall. I also agree with the fact that mages should be contained to a degree, because once they get freedom, they do get carried away and deal with demons. Proof of this is in the final battle, when you encounter NUMEROUS blood mages. --- Worden ----

No. Anders may have committed an act of terrorism--and I'm not debating that point, I DO agree it was a terrorist act--but he is far more comparable to John Brown, as has been mentioned on this page and at least one other, than to bin Laden. I knew it was inevitable that people, especially U.S. citizens, would correlate Anders with bin Laden, but I maintain that a comparison with John Brown is FAR more accurate. John Brown may have been a terrorist, and there's no question he did kill innocent people. But it is also a historical fact that he was VERY passionate abolitionist, and I don't know anyone who would argue against the belief that slavery is morally abhorrent.




Anders is a good character no matter what anyone says. he killed about a max 100 people, but how many mages had died because they were accused of being blood mages when templars had no proof. anders starts the mage reveilusion and no matter what u think anders is a good guy. And anders showed the hate on the circle as when he blew up the chantry the templars blamed the circle thus proveing hate for mages. the templars argument is that they use blood magic, but havent u noticed that most mages turn to blood magic when they are cornered or being chased by TEMPLARS the people meant to stop blood mages think about that before u hate on anders cause he killed some innocent people but as sad as it is sometimes people need to die for things to change.

——————————

I usually tend to side with the Mages, I've tried both of the endings, and thought it was pointless to side with the Mages, as most of them die. I believe the Chantry were being a wee bit harsh on them though. My main issue is with him killing the Grand Cleric. She was perhaps the most level-headed person that would have been able to halt the coming war, even if temporarily. She was always the voice of reason, against Sister Petrice, against Meredith and Orsino, she was always the one trying to calm the situation down instead of escalating the violence. I think she was the largest victim of it all. When she was killed, I decided to go with the Templars with my Warrior, but the first time I played, it was a Mage, and thought it might look a little strange if a Mage sided with the Templars.

So after that whole rant, I don't agree with Anders decision, but I can understand why he did it. Poor Grand Cleric Elthina.WardenCommander17 (talk) 19:40, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

I say that what Anders did is a grey area in my books. He acted as a mage, believing that no peaceful solution would change anything for mages, who would always be locked up in towers, forced to blood magic because they have no choice or would be torn away from their families, etc. But if Elthina mediated the dispute, nothing would change and an attempt would've happened anyway. Normally, I side with the mages, because I believe in a cause of freedom. And usually because templars can get paranoid is usually what would cause such hatreds. The resulting war would change Thedas forever, either creating a new Tevinter Imperium, a templar dominated regime desiring to crack down further on mages or a new world where there is balance between magic and control. --Unic of the borg (talk) 20:04, March 23, 2011 (UTC)


Even though I'm a mage sympathizer, I strongly disagree with Anders conclusion. Instead of helping the mages like he wanted to do and whined about it the whole game, he completly worsened the situation, making Meredith (that was already wee-wee on the head) invoke the Right of Annulment, killing every innocent mage that had nothing to do with Anders jackassery. The Grand Cleric even wanted to stop this war and she might have sided with the mages and that whole bloodshed would've stopped. I don't agree with everything the Templars do with the mages, but it's in the world's best interest. You can't just let a single mage wonder around for a few days and when you find him, he's already killed thousands of innocent people with blood magic. In short, I wish my Hawke wouldn't be a big diplomatic, mage-symphatizer, or else, I would've killed Anders. If I did so, that would come out of character... —Rocketai (Ho there! Chase my tail!) 20:08, March 23, 2011 (UTC)


Things are just more crazy in Kirkwall. Mages weren't as insane in DA:O as they are in Kirkwall, and Ferelden templars are much more likeable. There are many apostates in Ferelden but very few are blood mages. In Kirkwall, mages are more powerful, crazy blood mages are so numerous, the templars want to stop this madness but they are a bunch of self-righteous bastards. Orsino is secretly a blood mage. Meredith is a tyrant. If Ander wanted to stop this, he should have blown up the Templar Hall together with Meredith in it, not the Chantry. Alas, he can never break into the Templar Hall so he used Hawke to pick on easier preys.

I sided with the templars on my 1st playthrough, with the mages on the 2nd. What he did is murder, so I killed him in the name of justice (or Justice) on both playthrough. 68.200.118.153 (talk) 20:31, March 23, 2011 (UTC)


Well, as mentioned above, he didn't blow up the Templar hall, because that's where the mages live too… so that would have been a bit pointless.

One thing that's missing from this thread so far is Tranquil… remember that when we first meet Anders, Karl has been made Tranquil, a fate he regards as literally worse than death, and it's not just that Meredith's Templars are oppressing the mages, but that they are apparently making them Tranquil for relatively minor transgressions. Thus the Chantry avoids bloodshed and the notice or outrage of non-mages while effectively eliminating the mage population. And least we forget, the mages include children and old people as well -- for those who speak of innocents, surely the children forced into the circle are about as innocent as on can get, if we excuse that they were born mages.

I think the discussion above about John Brown is relevant -- mages are opposed not because of what they do, but because of a chance of birth -- not something they have control over.

This argument made above: "Like so many others mentioned, setting the mages free who have lived in the Circle their entire lives is not necessarily a kindness. Where are they going to go? What will they do? How will they function independently? What if they're just feared and reviled by the public? Aren't there better ways to "help" them than by provoking the Knight Commander into trying to have them all killed???"

is pretty much the argument made by the South for not freeing the slaves in the American Civil War. Poor slaves who've lived on the plantation all their lives just won't be able to make it in the outside world. Isn't it better that they are here where they are fed and housed and given useful work? Well, no, but that's just my opinion.

And let us not forget that all Anders really wanted was his little free clinic where he healed poor people, but the Templars were closing in and he feared being caught and made Tranquil for the great crime of helping others.

So the man lived for what? seven years? in Kirkwall under increasing scrutiny to the point where he was afraid to stand beside an unshaded window. And he's not only seeing more and more mages forced to the desperate measure of using blood magic, he's actually joining Hawke in killing those fellow mages when the go astray… Something has to be done or there will be no more mages, which would no doubt suit the Kirkwall Chantry just fine -- at least under the current weak leadership. (If you can't get rid of Meredith you are weak Elthina, no matter how "nice" you may be.)

The Chantry is the source of all of this -- they rule over all of Thedas, their actions only mitigated, but not controlled, by good rulers like Alistair. So blowing up the Chantry to finally stop the destruction of hundreds of innocent mages made Tranquil or forced into horrible alternatives… yeah, go Anders.

Could he foresee the future? Did he have plans for how things would be better? No, but then neither does anyone else in history. Those who appear to have plans that work out well are those who wrote the history. Any revolution can degenerate into chaos that ends worse for the oppressed than the previous status quo, but it is not always so -- upon occasion things do get better after the upheaval. What Anders realized was that the way thing were could not continue and it would take extreme action to change them. He fully expects to give his life for that action. For those who chose to kill him and criticize him for his speech, I suspect that those are only brave words to steel himself for his own death -- gallows speeches are quite common and rarely less than grandiose. You're going to die in the next few minutes -- you might as well go out as big as possible.

So, to me, the world needs its Anders as it needs its Hawkes… to counterbalance the barking mad Merediths and the dithering ineffectual Elthinas. --TropicalFool (talk) 21:46, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

A well formulated defence of Anders, and one I agree with. In the end, there are no absolutes - not even "the end justifies the means" would be legitimate in every context. But in this case, we have to look on it in the context of over a thousand years of Chantry oppression, under which Mages have basically NO rights at all, or at least only those the local Templarrs "deign" to give them. It is absolutely outrageous that the Templars under Meredith were allowed to "tranquillise" Mages having committed only minor transgressions. As Anders say in DA:O - A, "the problem is that Mages are merely tolerated" (often not even that), repressed only for what they are born as and for what they can potentially become (in many cases because of the oppression). -->Emil Olai (talk) 22:44, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Agree with what he did? No. Agree with why he did it? yes. It's a classic tale of "he did it for the right reason. just went about it the wrong way." I was ready to scream at him when.. you know.. ka-boom.. 'cause I honestly felt like i was getting through to orsino and meredith, then.. yeah.. and everyone went bat-guano-crazy again. Personally. I would have let the Templars and Mages kill each other while I rallied the Kirkwall Guards and kept the civilians safe.. um.. somewhere. Shame too, the Gallows would have been the safest place for them. An isolated island fortress.. Well, unless the fight between the Templars and the Mages could be contained in the Gallows.. but like that could happen. *coughcough-Orsino-coughcough* --Irishpride78 (talk) 01:53, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

+1 Irish! I absolutely love the idea of being able to rally the Guard and move citizens to a safe place while the crazy Templars and Mages kill each other. I have to believe if that had been an option that not just the guard and citizens would have followed Hawke, but there would have been defections with certain sane Templars and Mages too. I love this idea so much. Well done, Irish, well done. This is the third option the game needed, imo. This allows the war to still happen, it's still canon for BioWare to build off of, it just gives us the players the ability to leave a mark on the end other than "we picked a side and fought". Plus it shows how tactically smart and/or caring a person our Hawke can be. I can see it now; Hawke says, "No one can win here. (sigh) Aveline! Rally the guard. Get what citizens you can to my estate, we'll use the basement passage to Darktown to flee the fighting above." Aveline, "From there we can make it to the docks." Hawke replies, "Seems this ends the way it began." --Zambingo (talk) 02:21, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

You know something i find ironic about Ander? His moral principles seem more in line with non-mages then mages, perhaps even closer to templars then he would want to admit. He is one of the most adamant companions against the use of blood magic, yet his actions indicate it is not the tendency toward bloodshed and insanity that bother him, but the fact that the mages are allowing themselves to become demon puppets. Yet he views his action, while as destructive as anything you would expect from a blood mage, morally justified because he did on his own basis and with no demon influencing him (I’m ignoring justice here since they are the same at this point). It seems ironic for him to believe this considering a party banter with Feris follows a similar topic. Fenris asks Anders if he thinks he is safe as an abomination, while Anders points out Fenris ripped a man’s heart out in their first meeting. Feris feels his action was morally justifiable since he did not do it at the behest of a demon, but Anders scolds him by pointing out you don’t need a demon to be a vicious killer. Similarly, templar believe they hold the moral high ground over mages as they are (or think they are) not as susceptible to demon influence, so they feel they are automatically in the right. So Anders is a lot more like templars then he seems to want to admit, as he views his action as justifiable simply because it was his choice, not a demon's, rather then judge the moral worth of an action by the actual human lose and damage it will cause.--Ironreaper (talk) 04:00, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


I agree with Anders wholeheartedly. I'm pro-mage all the way and once Templar Cullen told me the Grand Cleric, if pushed to choose a side, would have to choose the Templars due to the oath she swore, I was actually kind of glad to watch her go. Also, I hate Sebastion, so I enjoyed watching him get extremely mad when the Chantry blew up. Everyone talks about how mages are always a risk to everyone around them due to possession or blood magic(which I don't consider inherently evil, just misused), but no one talks about how templars and normal beings are just as capable. Just take Sir Alrik(F****** Bastard, I relished killing him) as an example.STR8xxS1LVER (talk) 08:24, March 25, 2011 (UTC)STR8xxS1LVER

^"Normal beings" aren't capable of becoming Abominations,Arcane Horrors or shooting fireballs out of their hands at will. Remember a mage's corpse is much more of a risk than a "normal" corpse.--68.50.133.71 (talk) 13:17, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Finally someone who is a pro-mage and let Anders live i had let him coming back to my party what can I say,i cannot brinf myself to kill him wouldn't be cool if BW would an expasion pack and story to take place in the Tevinter imperium there we can set free the slaves and show the magisters that Imperium can fall a second time muhahah look at my evil laugh seriously i think that this would balance the things in DA universe atleast that's what i think. Cristynel (talk) 22:03, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with TropicalFool and Emil Olai. It's like what Orsino says before he becomes a Harvester "Why don't they just drown us as infants? Why give us the illusion of hope?" In the eyes of templars like Cullen, mages are not human, merely weapons. But what of our mage Wardens? They loved, they hated... does this not make them people? Do they not have the right to live, just like everyone else? Mages are judged and condemned simply because "of a mistake of birth" as Bethany puts it, not even given the chance to be understood and often become the victims of monsters like Ser Alrik and his "Tranquil solution". Even when you present the papers you found on his corpse to the Grand Cleric, she dismisses them and shows more sympathy to his "murder" than to his crimes and his victims; this made me want to scream. Like any person, if backed into a corner, people will fight for their lives any way they can; mages just have more options than others. Anders actions were not the result of a petty argument that just happened within a few days; it was built on the injustices seen within the span of centuries, like with Ser Alrik. Eventually, the pot is going to overflow, and in regards to Kirkwall, I'm surprised the pot didn't explode earlier. For all those saying that killing Anders was what he deserved, let me ask this; Isn't killing Anders letting him off easy? The dead do not care if you hate them or not, they do not see the anger, sadness and pain caused by their actions, the dead do not regret, they are just dead. Wouldn't be more of a punishment to have Anders live with what he had wrought, to be a witness of his actions, and to suffer the consequences? Shouldn't he live and, for every life lost to his actions, he must save and serve 100 more? I did not let Anders live only because he was my friend, my lover; I let him live because his life is no longer his to waste. My Hawke will make him pay for every life lost, and I won't let him use death as an easy escape... but that's my opinion. Sevarian10 (talk) 06:06, March 25, 2011 (UTC)Sevarian10

Believe it or not, that is a similar position that the writer of Anders has (his writer for DA2 Jenifer Helper) towards his actions Just scroll down to see how she interprets having him live. Balitant (talk) 23:08, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
Lol, poetic justice FTW Sevarian10 (talk) 23:20, March 25, 2011 (UTC)Sevarian10

Firstly, let me say, I believe as much as the next guy that the templars have gone too far. Someone once, I think it was on here, even suggested the Circle be more like a school for mages (a la Hogwarts) to help them learn their powers and warn them of the dangers of demons, and templars be a special police force in case one of them goes crazy. (The templars ARE a necessary force, being specially trained to fight mages.) However, Anders rubs me all the wrong ways. It's like the difference between being a vegetarian and being a vegetarian who also kills anyone who eats meat. He's dangerous, he's obnoxious, and he's a hypocrite. Not only does he completely go against his personality in Awakening, but even within DA2, he's constantly contradicting himself in the most obnoxious ways possible. Seriously, at one point he was chewing out Merrill, and he said that she'd only betray Hawke that's all her kind ever does. I'm sorry, Anders, but at no point do I remember Merrill making me go through the sewers because she said she needed help, only to find out she was planning to blow up the Chantry behind my back. The entire game I just wanted to punch him for his hypocrisy. He thinks he's doing the mages some great favor by doing this, but he's not. He's getting more people killed. It's especially egregious if you have a pro-mage Hawke, because I believe Hawke would have been able to find a more peaceful solution, but no! Anders had to go be a terrorist calling himself a martyr. DA2 Anders is by far my least favorite companion in a video game, ever. Rikki Rica (talk) 23:46, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest though, almost every companion you have in DA2 is a hypocrite... just saying Sevarian10 (talk) 23:55, March 25, 2011 (UTC)Sevarian10
I really don't care for how people relate the GAME to terrorism. It is a GAME. In in most games you can find true love, people can actually redeem themselves, and it isn't lip service. Where achieving the greater good, never starts or ends peacefully, but a long hard road, laid with bodies of the "bad" guys and the Innocent. This isn't about 9/11 or anything in this real world. It is about people be oppressed and basically being considered less then humans. Also who is to say that if mages were given more freedom half the wonky shit they wouldn't happen. You would be surprised what people will do to earn the freedom. Look at United States, we started a war(for those who like to bring the real world into it) Also for those who like to bring the real world into it, I don't know to many revolutions that started peacefully or was resolved so. So yes I took his side, I spared him. Not saying I wasn't saying "WTF" the whole time. I know the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the is more then likely true, but on the same note change never happens while standing still. Also people try to draw lines between Justice, Vengeance and Retribution when there isn't any, they are all forms of each other and are in a area of gray, they all depend on where you live and the life you know. Anders didn't know a good life. If you gay romance him(this pissed me off) he actually hints at how he was taken away from his family, and the Templar's threatened his parents, that kind of thing would spark a hatred in me like the sun.(this made me mad because female Hawke didn't get this!)Amondra (talk) 01:20, March 26, 2011 (UTC)Amondra March 25, 2011 6:14pm
This is off topic, but have you ever read the Night Angel Trilogy, because you just mentioned the three faces of the night angels and i saw no reason for mentioning retribution. If you didn't, read the books because they were very good.
@Sevarian10 Varric isn't! But that's a good point. I liked the characters, but not very many of them were reasonable. @Amondra Um, there are terrorists in games too. I think in the Mass Effect games Cerberus is outright called by some characters a terrorist organization. I don't think I at any point compared him to Muslim extremists or 9/11. Terrorist is a broad term to define "any violent acts which are intended to create fear, are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of civilians," which Anders did exactly. Of course, it's all a matter of bias. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. As for real world peaceful resolutions: Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Gandhi.

Nelson Mandela did resort to terrorism and his group was considered a terrorist organisation by the US during its time. Their group went nowhere near the heights of Al Queda, as it aimed at blowing up military and government infrastructure, not civilians, but i have some South African friends to have strong views that he was a terrorist.--Ironreaper (talk) 06:45, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

What if it wasn't Anders who is responsible? He said that him and Justice were the same, not two separate beings. Maybe Justice/Vengence had more of an influence than anyone thought and this was his fault. We know that when Anders' emotions run high he canlose control. Maybe the spirit got the firm foothold it wanted. I didn't agree or disagree, but I was just in shock when I saw that explosion. I didn't know that could be done. BTW i want that as a bomb recipe in an expansion pack, but just a little smaller.DrahcirAloer (talk) 02:00, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

I never meant there was no peaceful ones just rare. Also never played Mass Effect. I wasn't referring to you, but rather most the people I find complaining about what he did. I don't see Terrorist fitting for him; desperate and broken, yes. I just feel some people are taking it to close to real life and not the fact it is a game is all. Sorry you took as I was talking about you. Amondra (talk) 02:11, March 26, 2011 (UTC)Amondra March 25, 2011
I agree with you Amondra. Perhaps if this game was done in an earlier, less difficult time, then maybe everyone wouldn't keep referring to what Anders did as harshly as we do, perhaps people would have thought differently all together. But sadly, it is becoming more and more apparent that people are having a hard time separating real-life situations and events from made-up ones, especially when it comes to video games. I for one am glad to play games like this that question my decisions and allow me to see my consequences; it allows me to become fully immersed into the world and all its wonder. But at the end of the day, it's still a game; an interactive book as I like to call it. Let's just enjoy it for what it is Sevarian10 (talk) 02:34, March 26, 2011 (UTC)Sevarian10

I think I would have to side with Anders just for the fact mre ppl have died just for being mages and a lot more for helping them. Also the dalish have been hunted and disstain just for having mages freely open to use their magic so compared to what Anders did I think its no more than what is deserve. I mean alot of innocents have been killed just for being mages. Also I think the mages wouldnt go out of control look at its a stable country with free mages who do spirit possesion. So what Anders did might be wrong but I think it would prevent even more bloodshed than in the future. So with that let the mages REVOLUTION BEGIN!@!!!!!! YAHHH.

Lying and concealing is already a tacit admission of guilt -- he knew damn well he couldn't be forgiven, but the manipulative little prick thought it was worth it to get you to help him. And you're given absolutely know means to prevent it, even when every clue tells you he's fucking up big time. The way his character was derailed just to railroad the player later leads me to believe this would've been a much better game without him. So yeah, I blame him for ruining Dragon Age II. Fuck Anders. DokEnkephalin (talk) 00:37, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Really? You honestly think Anders was the only one who did this? In case you may have forgotten, Isabella does the exact same thing. Because Isabella stole a relic of grave importance to the Qunari, they end up stuck in a foreign land where they are unjustly attacked by zealots simply because they exist and started a war as a result of her selfishness. And, just like Anders, she lies to you, knowing full well what the relic was, it's importance, along with how she lost it, FOR 3 YEARS. Even when confronted about it, if you don't have a high enough friendship with her, she runs and doesn't come back, leaving you and everyone else in the city to die because of it. So yeah, she is just as "manipulative" as Anders in this retrospect. If you're going to blame a character for ruining the game for you, then you might as well blame Isabella just as well. Sevarian10 (talk) 01:31, March 27, 2011 (UTC)Sevarian10
If Isabella hadn't jacked the book, we would still be sitting in Hightown with a tumb up my ass for quite a few years, waiting till Meridith gets bat-shit crazy due to the lyruim. Also none of us would be crowned champion.--68.50.133.71 (talk) 02:19, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
You make good enough points to start a "Fuck Isabela" thread (which I would get behind...emphatically.) But the difference there is that Anders' life wasn't at such immediate risk that he couldn't explore other options, perhaps ones that didn't involve genocide of innocents by his direct hand. And the flashpoint between the mages and templars didn't have the inevitability as the one between the Chantry and the Qun. The Circle were natives who lived with each other all their lives and didn't really want war between them, but the Qun were a hostile ideology who weren't going to be satisfied with the annex they were granted. The Qun had to go one way or another, but the destruction of the Circle couldn't be good for the city no matter who wins. DokEnkephalin (talk) 02:26, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
The original point of my comment wasn't to hate on Isabella (though in truth I was glad I could punch her in Act 3) but to just point out how thin the line between the intentions of characters in this game are to one another. As for inevitability, in truth, I could see the eventual conflict between the mages and the templars coming since the end of Act 2. It became even more clear if say, you talked to Cullen in Act 3, in which it was stated by another poster here that Cullen will tell you that if it came down to it, The Grand Cleric would have no choice but to side with the Templars since she swore an oath to it and that he finds it cruel that she would lead the mages on as she does; Could you imagine the uproar when that day finally came?. It also didn't help that Cullen even tells you that although she's not at Uldred's point yet, he can see in Meredith's eyes that she's nearly to her breaking point. In short, whether Anders destroyed the Chantry or not, it was painfully obvious that sooner or later, the templar/mage conflict would result in war, and lives (both innocent and guilty) would be lost regardless. Case in point: The quest "faith" if you got the Exiled Prince DLC. Leliana tells you that if things kept going the way they were, the Divine would have plans to march her armies onto Kirkwall, aka an Exalted March. Even if Orsino and Meredith continued to fight for a few more years, it would have been most likely that if they didn't kill each other first, the Divines armies would, and they wouldn't even see it coming since only you and the Grand Cleric were warned. And it's just like what the Grand Cleric said "do you think no innocents were killed during the Exalted marches?" Pretty much, kirkwall was lost for the longest time; Anders actions just sped up the conclusion. Sevarian10 (talk) 03:37, March 27, 2011 (UTC)Sevarian10
I understand your point with Isabela, but adding her to argument muddies more than it clarifies this issue. The moral equivalence argument is rhetorical sleight-of-hand; she can have her own trial elsewhere.
Perhaps the mages clash with templars was inevitable, but that was due to Meridith's initial pressure, and even with increasing pressure, enough people on both sides still supported a synthesis rather than an elimination of either thesis. Cullen says the Grand Cleric would have to support the templars, but that was far out of her earshot, and she says herself that her support wouldn't help either side. Up until then, the Champion could've gathered the means to deflate Meridith and take control for the sake of the city. Up until then, cooler heads could've prevailed, and radical heads could've been kicked into the gutter. But Anders put a literal powderkeg under the whole conflict, and forced everyone to pick sides. He knew just how wrong this was even before he did it. DokEnkephalin (talk) 12:33, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

In the end Ander's like Orsino changed the mages from being in the right into those who were in the wrong. Meredith may have been crazy and a megalomaniac, but she was RIGHT. Anders actions I disapproved of. But if it had happened after Elthina had picked the side then fair enough. (As a mage it was more "Why NOW?") dahoughtonuk(talk)

No she was not right. She was a idiot and Seb even pointed it out. a lone terrorist blows up a building, you do not blame the people in general viciiaty, you blame the lone terrorist who is standing in front of you and confessing in to have performed the act alone. Even the US goverment isnt that stupid, not for lack of trying.--Ironreaper (talk) 09:34, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

For me, what Anders did was unjustifiable. His argument that it was the only way just doesn't hold water. The only thing he achieved was pushing Meredith to the edge. Her reaction sparked the war, not his action. There was surely some other way to do that. Never use a bomb, when a blade will do.

What struck me on my second play was how much I disagreed with Elthina. Her timidity was as much to blame as Ander's terrorism or Meredith's fascism. She was the only person who had any chance to remove Meredith from power peacefully. She was obviously aware of Meredith's abuses. She chose to sit on the sidelines and let things come to a head on their own. She failed her flock.--Dethanos (Unregistered)

Meredith is a fanatic, not a fascist. Fascism is a government system based on extreme nationalism and racial purity. Fanatic is the following of an ideology to its most extreme limits. I do dislike it when the term is used inappropriately. Thank you very much Godwin's law.--Ironreaper (talk) 05:32, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

She's as much to blame as the Viscount, which is to say that the guilt in both of their death's is clearly someone else's, though trying to mediate the growing tension led to their downfall. In both cases, there are only two things that can be done to keep the peace: 1) pick a side and completely eliminate the opposite or 2) provide a bigger threat to both sides. Neither of them are ruthless enough to be that threat (would've been nice to let the player be the big bad hatchet-man,) but Elthina had a perfect one handed to her in the form of an Exalted March. She could simply spread the word that it'll be the kind of Annulment that won't pass over the templars. But this is aside the point that Anders screwed up badly, and his deception and obfuscation reveals that he knew it. It boggles me how he could believe he'll be a martyr for committing mass murder; if anyone gets treated well by history, it'll be Elthina.DokEnkephalin (talk) 21:37, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
Had Elthina stepped in to begin with (and actually mediated), there might have been a third option: 3) getting both sides to calm down and trying to find a middle ground (like for example, if you stop pressuring us, we will stop having to resort to Blood Magic; or f.eks. letting the Mages punish their own transgressors, so that they do not have to fear for their lives every time anyone sneezes). When conflicts like this arise, the passive ones, sitting on the fence and hoping for the best, are just as much to blame. Had she even tried to be a neutral third party, she might not have been dead now.

As a champion of Kirgwall and as a person who often prefer being objective rather than siding with he's favorite and really stand for Justice in the game all the game I put my efforts of resolving the problem piecefully. Even from the DLC of DA:O I liked Anders not because of his personality, which to be honest is a weak man, but because of Justice. I loved that the actual spirit of Justice is there. And from the end of the game I do understand Anders reasons for what he did - but those are the reasons of a MAN, and the one who inspired them is not Justice, it is Vengance! Do not forget that. It is not Justice that has triumph through this blow. No. What is more Anders thinks that this is the "way" to save the mages? What if they do not want that. Remember that Oransio send you to look for his people because he feared they were doing Blood Magic? Even mages do not like other using Blood Magic. Did he even agreed with Anders? NO! He knew that this will doom them all. He knew and the Grand Cleric and Respected her. In my opinion it is not Justice to help people in a way that they do not think is helpful. Anders crossed the border too far. He didn't just set a war! For got sake he brought apocalypse to the Threads. You always say what abuses do Templars do to mages... because the game shows most of it. Do you even remember each time what does Blood Magic do? They enslave people by their minds, they pact with demons. Just because the game shows more of one side of the problem does not mean it is bigger. What about Tevinter? The Blight? Who do you think made those. The Templars should do what they do - they are needed other wise everything was going to be Tevinter. There was not going to be any "thinking man" rather than mages. Do you remember the slaves of Tevinter in Fennris quests. Is that what you want to be. Just for not being mage? No! Meredith was the Only problem here. She pushed them too much. Templars should gard the mages and "Always be vigilant" but not abuse them or inprison them. But remember that even Templars are weaker to Abominations... so they should act early. As for the Chantry and the Grand Cleric it's easy to judge from the sides. She could have fled as the Divine ordered her and to leave Meredith without any control? Did she? No! In my game I did side with the Mages because of Meredith, but I killed Anders - as I do not see him as doing this Justiful. I was goint to fight the these Templars even now. And remember that a big part of them were against Meredith! Some understood this was too much. They were together with the rebeled mages. And what did the Bitch, whose life I saved during ActI do... she tried to kill my sister. WHY? - BLOOD MAGIC! Is her blood magic reasonable? How do justify her actions? Any answers? Belov 04:34, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, Blood Magic did not cause the Blight. As Alistair pointed out in DA:O, "They come out od the ground, and that is about all we know". The Chantry has its version, of course, but its is very one sided, and there does not seem to be any proof of it. In the end, it is nothing but religious dogma, and not a very original one at that (almost all of the major religions includes stories of a lost paradise, and a greatest/original sin). And while the Templars serve a necessary function, there seems to be no reason to treat mages they way there are. As I believe somebody pointed out earlier, Rivain, for example, is a country where apostates are fairly common, and except for the always threatening Qunari invasion, it seem to be rather stable. And as for Tevinter, as Anders pointed out in DA2, it is not so much of a problem with mages as with magisters. Corruption and madness are human faults, not magical, and we have a perfectly good example of this with Meredith and Sister/Mother Petrice. And while Blood Magic is certainly quiet dangerous and powerful, you could say the same thing about nearly any sort of magic, as well as all sorts of weapons, and as Merrill pointed out during her recruitment quest, there is nothing inherently evil about it. In fact, one of the greater problems with Blood Magic, is the demonic influence necessary to learn it nowadays, and a lot of Rogue Mages and Apostates, who just want to be free, turn to Blood Magic just to survive. The Chantry's fear and prosecution of Blood Magic seems quite irrational, as they have even suppressed anatomical studies, as well as ignoring more immediate threats (see last paragraph under BM in Thedas). It is also quite hypocritical. A Blood Mage, no matter what the intentions or level of the transgression is killed on sight, without question, but their method of finding Rogue Mages, their use pf Phylacteries, is actually a form of Blood Magic in itself. Now, I might have gotten a bit carried away with the quantity of my arguments here, but to get back to my original point, Templars are necessary to hunt down and kill demons and power mad and all but crazy mages. But need they lock up every single mage in Thedas to do so? If the argument is that they are a threat, they might as well lock up everyone, as everyone can be a potential murderer, thief etc. Personally, I can't see why the Templars cannot just serve as a sort of police, only being called upon when it is necessary.-->Emil Olai (talk) 12:27, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is not Blood Magic that makes them what they are but their corrupttion. Still, I'm not sure why but when a mage start practicing one he usually becomes smth like a demon. The exact examples I'll give are the mage who tried to kill your sister and the other two who you hunt for Meredith... They just escaped and turn to blood magic but why do they always become demons? I don't know but it seems this magic is not for everyone and do things to them that makes them no more themselves. This is not true for the other types of magic. And Merril may pointed out that there is nothing evil about it, but excuse me to point out that that is not the right example with the little girl playing with demons. Remember that even Anders did not like her Blood Magic as she used it to contact demons and what is more in the Fade it was quite proven that if actually Marathari did not took the Demon Merril was going to die as Abomination. I would not take her as a good example of control magic. And Templars do not hunt demons and are not capable of normally - there are no normal warriors who do, or mages for the case. They were made to make sure no one becomes one. And they can't be police because when it is necessary will be too late - as in the Circle in Ferelden, and because trough Blood Magic minds can be controlled and who will call the police?Belov 13:02, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
To make this a bit more lucid than my last contribution, I'll divide my response into numbered parts:
1. As I already pointed out, the only option for contemporary Mages to learn Blood Magic is to communicate with Blood Demons, thus making them susceptible to their influence and dominance.
2. Technically, it is only "real" Magic, the one that uses Mana, that is dependent upon the spirit world. Some even argue that Blood Magic (BM) is the greatest form of Magic, as it is independent, relying only upon the real world and the Mage himself (or, I admit, his or her victims...). I am not sure how this works technically, but it could be reasonable to postulate that a Blood Mage, having learned BM from a non-demonic source, might be more resistant to their influence.
3. I emphasised on Merrill because she is one of the most lovely creatures in all of Thedas (*dreamyvoice*). *Putshimselftogether* My point is that, while she might have been over her head, she was not evil, nor would she ever have been. I actually find it quite likely that she would have killed herself to avoid being possessed, when realising the demon's true intentions.
4. While BM does include Mind Control spells, it is possible to counter this, as the Litany of Adralla from DA:O clearly shows. But as I have already pointed out, the Chantry's irrational fear of BM have made them ban every type of BM, apparently even research into the subject. Who is to say that there are not even more effective ways of disrupting it? More research seems necessary, but, alas! thwarted by the withmotherfornicating Chantry.
5. Need I remind you that the circle in Ferelden was freed with the help of Wynne, a Circle Mage, who by the way had single-handedly right up until the moment she joins fended of all of the abominations and Blood Mages who had tried to get to them?. And while not necessarily canon, both the Warden and Hawke can also be Mages, and quite capable ones at that. -->Emil Olai (talk) 13:37, March 28, 2011 (UTC)


For the most part mages turn to demons to learn blood magic, but the Mage origin made it clear that the Fereldan Circle at least had books about blood magic that Irving took away. this is how Jowan originally learned blood magic. And yes, the fact that blood magic books are their for anyone to read is kind of stupid.

The fact is that blood magic may not be inherently evil, but it is dangerous. The mage in question need s to use their own life force to power spells and if they do not have what it takes and their life is in danger, they will use the lives of others. Power corrupts and the Imperium is proof of that. Also it is a Faustian deal made by thoughts foolish enough to believe they will come out on top. Maybe if more research was done then mages can learn the limits of blood magic before the demons take over, or learn the tricks. But until then, people who use blood magic are shown to have a penchant for exaggerated emotions and desires. Tenvinter mages lose inhibitions and become greedy, rouge apostates become vengeful, paranoid, ultimately leading to insanity, destruction and evil. Merrill is an odd one out since she had limited her use of blood magic and i would like to believe Hawke and the mirror gave her something to focus on. It is undoubtable that her actions caused damage, since she was a demons tool from the star and would have eventually been possessed. You cannot say for certain that after everything she would have realised the demon's intent in time or had been able to do anything by the time she had. Even the keeper was not powwerful enugh to kill herself and kill the demon inside her.--Ironreaper (talk) 13:59, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure he learnt it from books? I think I remember you to be correct, but I cannot remember when and how it was indicated.
I do not think the Magisters of the Tevinter Empire are a good example of how Blood Magic supposedly corrupts. By the way, there is nothing that indicates that Tevinter Mages are corrupt in general. As I have already said, Anders pointed out that the problem lies more with being a Magister, and thus a political figure, than with being a Mage. For an example of the opposite, take Adralla, a Tevinter Mage and the only Mage ever (apparently) to have researched ways to resist BM. The problem is that their political climate is a labyrinth of treachery, murder, corruption and power-games, but the exact same thing can be said about Antiva and Orlais. Antiva is even hinted at being ruled by its guild of assassins. And while a lot of Blood Magic turned Rogue Mages displays an apparently emotional instability, it is not clear how much of this is due to the use of Blood Magic or how much of it is due to the persecution and mistreatment of Mages in general, and the stress that comes with that. Merrill might have been mislead, but she was still a good person, and the same goes for Jowan (read the article on the quest Jowan's Intention).-->Emil Olai (talk) 17:39, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
Irving mentions removing the books if you talk to him after talking to Jowan.

While it is difficult to understand where reality ends and propaganda begins with the Imperium, particulary when it comes to the Blight (i do not believe the Chantry's story. It is propaganda, nothing more), but Fenris makes it pretty clear that a lot of stuff is basically true. Slavers make it clear slavery is quite true. And it makes practical sense at least since absorbing a slave's blood provide a way out if attacked. Fenris is by no means an unbiased opinion but that does not mean everything he says is a lie. His very existence is proof that there is corruption within the magisters if they are willing to perform such a excruciating act on a slave. Doses that make every magister a monster? probably not. And i have to agree that the political system is more to blame, since but is dos seem like the nation is run by political who need to be a bit Machiavellian to survive and get ahead.

there are examples of blood amgic really driving a person insane more then any mere persecution. Huon comes immediately to mind. And the Mad Hermit. and Decimus. and Grace. i could go on. And of course Uldred. Great going mate. You try blood magic and a pride demon possesses you within the first few seconds. he must have really sucked at it.

please do not defend Jowan, as i always was pissed off at him for leaving my Warden to be punished for him being an idiot. My Warden was so pissed off at him every time they met after that. But your point is taken. But that is all it comes down to? can a person be nice and a blood mage? cause from what we see the bad ones go nuts and the nice ones get possessed, exempt Jowan cause he stopped using it. even merrill was going to be. Iin either case they end up a danger to those around them. If that is it then you cannot deny the danger of blood magic

Ultimately the only way blood magic can be studied is within the Grey Wardens and in Tevinter. And Avernus showed that truly fruitful experimentation would require living human subjects. Would you be willing to kill people in the hope it will give us some insight? Kill a few innocents to save a lot of mages. Wait that sounds familiar. Oh right anders did that. so would you?--Ironreaper (talk) 16:02, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Concerning Huon, Decimus and Grace, it is unclear whether it was the Blood Magic that perverted them or not. By taking other examples into account, such as Merrill, Jowan and Avernus (he is quite clearly neither mad nor power hungry, just a full-fledged pragmatist (albeit a bit cynical), it does not seem as if the BM in itself is to blame. As already stated, BM is not in itself evil. And if it does corrupt (in any other way than "power corrupts", it is more likely because of the demonic source for most of the Mages. I do defend Jowan, and that is because he is not a bad person, just a bit lost (again, if you did not already, reread his profile). And unlike Merrill, his dabbling with BM does not seem to have endangered anyone around him (you say otherwise, but could you please indicate why? as just replayed the game with Magi Origin, and as far as I could see, his only crime was to know how to use it).
Uldred, in his case, summoned a Pride demon, and it is unclear whether or not this was on purpose, and whether or not it was some sort of desperate last resort, defence, accident etc.. It is clear, however, that his motivation, and the one of those who followed him, was only to free the Circle from Templar and Chantry influence and oppression. He does, in a way, seem a lot like the Anders/Justice prototype for DA:O.
And no, I cannot object to the dangers of Blood Magic, but that is exactly why it seems, or rather is, important to research it (and that out of Tevinter, by Mages without political agendas and ambitions). In a way, it seems, BM is a bit like gun powder, or nuclear power/research. It can be used for so much good (the Chantry uses it themselves), but also for evil. Again, blame not the sword, but the hand who wields it. I will say this once more, research, and not irrational bans, would be necessary. Maybe, with proper research, good means of defending oneself could be found, thus making BM not more dangerous than "normal" Magic.
My argumentation might be a bit ironic, by the way, as I am the first to argue for Gun Control in real life. The problem here is that, while guns are objects made by human hand (and much to often with the only intent of being effective at killing other humans), Blood Magic is knowledge, not possible to take away once it is learned.
Oh! and at last, while admittedly much more effective with human sacrifices, Avernus' research did yield results through humane methods, and it is hinted at, with or without "thorough" research, great potential laying "dormant" within a Warden's blood. His research could possibly benefit all of Thedas, if it makes the Wardens more effective and thwarting Blights (which just about every time nearly wiped out all of Thedas). And while I am not comfortable with it, in the words of the architect: "Is it not the way of the Grey Wardens to do what must be done, in the name of combating the Blight?". Even Nathaniel Howe seems to agree at least partially with the gambit of the Architect, which failed and unleashed the Fifth Blight. But to sum up, I do not know. I am against the sacrifice of innocents, but that does also include the innocent victims of a Blight, of Templar persecution etc.. "I do not think there is a right thing to do here". -->Emil Olai (talk) 17:46, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
Just a point about Merril resisting and defeating the Demon - she side with him in the quest in the Fade for that dreamwalker and since her obsession with bringing back the eluvian she would have made a deal with a Demon. Making the deal it self is making you in the phisical world an Abomination.Belov 19:39, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
Point. I had forgotten about that. -->Emil Olai (talk) 20:33, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
One more thing I just got on mind. Actually two. As some of the people talk about Blood Magic and elves remember what was the clan's attitude towards Merril - I'm not going to comment it myself. And as I do agree that research must be done for BM, I think you must agree that it is not supposed to be done by any ordinary mages of the Circle. The most wisest or gifted are the one that actually resist it from what I've seen. So for now it should not be let to the mass of the mages. And as we know what might even happen to the most powerful under BM there must be the Templars to prevented it. As I said before DA2 present the supression of the mages by Templars, but what would you do if you see every day how people are corrupted to twist their minds every day? Would you not be vigilant a lot? How much innocent would die to BM if Templars are like police - "called". A Blood Mage can summon more then dozens demons. You must agree that Templars should always be close to mages and care for what happens. Someone talk about it like nuclear power. Do you think if every 10th people of the population had inside him a Uranium 237 would there not be gards all over to make sure he does not blow the city? As to they do suppress mages, I do agree with some of what Meredith said: "We all must be vigilant. And it breaks my heart when I have to do it, but there is no other choice." This is called the choice of the least evil. Researches should be done. But only by few. No more. Other should not try this.

And as the saying of the Arishok - "It's not the sword to blame, but the hand who wields it." remember one thing - the Quanari, which I respect most - have gun powder, but still do not let magic along go as is in Ferelden. I even remember the Saarbarus what he said when he kills him self - "Even now that I'm thinking I would not be able to say if I'm not possesed." With great power comes great responsibility and for the worst of human kind it has been always curiousity that leads us, but not responsibility! Belov 21:56, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Uranium and nuclear bomb is not a perfect metaphor. As has already been pointed out, both Rivain and Arlathan (in its time) both had Blood Magic and free Mages, and neither are/were unstable nations. And the Grey Wardens have used it since their creation. Yes, there is Tevinter, but, I repeat myself, it seems to be more of a political, structural problem than a magical one. I do agree that there should be Templars around to safeguard the realm against BM and Abominations, but only in the sense that there should be guards around to safeguard against theft, murder etc.. You can't lock people away and take away their freedom just because of what they are or can become. Neither for what they know. -->Emil Olai (talk) 22:06, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
Blood Magic in Arthalan is speculation, as far as I recall it is said "might". So actually is not a fact. If I'm wrong please point me to a page. As to Rivain we know almost nothing about it and just that they are more "rational". We know they let being possessed by spirits but still again I do not recall a codex about Blood Magic - if wrong correct me. Last they should be "imprisoned" until they learn and prove to control it. They might have bigger places to live and have occasional meetings with not mages and etc but be guarded. In my opinion there should be some kind of "Final Exam" and if you make it it will prove you are with your mind in what you are doing. Then you are free walk. Belov 23:16, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I admit the extent of it is speculation. Apparently, it is hinted that the Magisters of the Old Tevinter Imperium learnt their Blood Magic, not from the Old Gods, but from Arlathan. But they did know of Blood Magic, and they did use it. The old elven spirit that teaches you the Arcane Warrior specialisation in DA:O used BM to trap his spirit within the Phylactery. Follow the link to see for yourself (the information comes not from the game itself, I believe, but from David Gaider himself). The final exam of which you speak exists: the Harrowing. But even after passing it, a Mage is not free to leave when he wants to. And besides, do you not find it cruel to be pushed at a demon to test your strength, the only alternatives being death or the loss of your dreams and feelings, as well as your personality and Free Will? -->Emil Olai (talk) 23:36, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
By the way, could you please sign your paragraphs? You are difficult to find in this labyrinth of arguments. -->Emil Olai (talk) 23:41, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
I do sign them but not with my user name... I'm hearing now the interview and will look what will check. The Horrowing is a little pushed. And I mean the end. First you should be able to choose when to do it - until then you stay in the Circle. And yes later you to be able to move freely, but not before that. For me that is Justiful. Belov 00:11, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Then we agree, and it stands to reason that even the Chantry should be able to agree to such a model - at least if they were not irrationally afraid of Mages (Oh, sorry. I just noticed your quite unique "Belov"-part). -->Emil Olai (talk) 00:22, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

My issue with Jowan is that, if the warden does not betray him, then Jowan ends up betraying their trust. He lies to their face about using blood magic and when they're caught he leaves you facing the music. If ducan had not shown up you would likely had be executed. these are personal flaws and have nothing to do with blood magic, so i can get annoyed at him for his actions. and please stop telling me to look at his artical. i have been on this wiki longer then you and know the games well. do not insult me my implying i do not know what i am talking about.

I am sorry. It was not my intention to insult you. I just feel a bit sorry for Jowan, as I find him to be a tragic character. My intention by pointing out the article was just to indicate that, in the end, if left to do his own bidding, he does the right thing, without being forced to do so (as one can say of his actions in Redcliff). I will not reiterate all I have said about him, but he never did seem to have malicious intentions. And I too would have lied, out of fear (not spite or "Idonottrrustyou"ness), had I done something similar out of misguided naivety, and risked execution if being caught. Oh, and by the way, how did you do that with your text? Was it intentional? -->Emil Olai (talk) 00:01, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Not really intentional. i think it was because i left a space ay the start. But for all his naivety, Jowan probably wouldn’t have had a problem if he didn’t dabble in blood magic. his girl wouldn’t have hated him and Gregor wouldn’t have wanted to kill him. presumably he feared he wound have been made Traquil from the start, so work on your magic and research, otherwise your making things worse. I can see his trgic aspects, but even he admits he betrayed the Warden's trust and left them to die in his place.--Ironreaper (talk) 00:38, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

"(...) left them to die in his place.": Point. He was not entirely after that moment innocent, though he did act in panic. -->Emil Olai (talk) 00:50, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Still want to punch him. like everyone else wants to punch Isabela--Ironreaper (talk) 05:38, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

And yes blood magic in Arthalan is ambigous. The game does not make it clear if the Imperium mages learnt it from demons, elves or genuine Old Gods. I tend to believe the Old Gods were invented by the magisters to make them seem more importamt and worthy of their powers. What does interest me is that the Forgotten ones in elven lore were also locked underground. Could the Imperium have used this as a basis for their gods?

Well, I do not know to what extent the real world can be used as an example here, but all of the real-world major religions build upon the myths and legends of older religions. Jesus himself has been said to be a construction of many aspects and parts of other, similar figures. And you are not the first to suggest this, as theories about the Old Gods/Elven Pantheon seem to be quite common (some of them ridiculously far-fetched, and quite fun to read). -->Emil Olai (talk) 00:01, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting if the Arthalan elves "invented" blood magic. They pretty much agree today that the elves back then were immortal and only went to sleep willingly. I don’t know if this is some metaphor for death the elves misunderstood or is genuine, but it is implied a single elf could have enough "life energy" to power any spell. Once people have the resources and don’t need to steal the life of others, blood magic to the society would probably appear less sinister. To bad mages these days aren’t becoming immortal anytime soon.

Indeed. I hope the next game will let us delve a bit more into the lore. I would very much like to know more about the Elves of Arlathan, the origins/homeland of the Qunari, the source of the Darkspawn and the truth behind the Old Gods etc.. Oh! and there is that ongoing war between the Templars and Mages. That will indeed be interesting. But lore ftw! -->Emil Olai (talk) 00:50, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn’t mind a bit of ambiguity but they have given us some things to be interested about. The eluvihans make it clear that the elves were magically advanced and i dearly want to know more about this "realm beyond the fade". What it is? what creatures inhabit it? Why does Morrigan believe it will give her power? Did Flemeth come from it? was she the only one?

In fact i would have prefered it if the stroyline of DA2 to focus on Hawke fighting some powerful being that has escaped the realm, with Flemeth advising hawke on how to do it since the being considers itself Flemeth's archrival. and just to make things worse, the creature can make the Veil thinner across all the Free Marches, releasing demons everywhere, until it collapse and all of the Fade breaks loose. And as the Veil get thinner the Divine sends in her army, thinking mages are behind it and you ave to fight them as well. i have thought too much on this

But most of all, what the mirror's connection to the taint. Avernus is by far the most informed individual in this regard and he says the taint of darkspawn is alien to demons. Since demons invented blood magic and live in the fade, it is unlikely the taint originated from these things, blowing the Chantry story out of the water. Did it come from this realm beyond the Fade?--Ironreaper (talk) 05:38, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguïty is fun, yes, but they have not exactly been generous when is comes to information about Arlathan, Eluvians, the Darkspawn etc.. They do it well, though, when it comes to the Qunari and their origins.
To be quite honest, I really like the direction DA2 has taken. DA:O was epic, but as most fantasy games and books, it focused on a supernatural enemy threatening the entire realm, and it has many parallels, such as "Wheel of Time", "Lord of the Rings", and even "A Song of Ice and Fire" and "Mass Effect" (the Reapers) just to mention a few. DA2 focuses on political and ethnic tensions, spiced with xenophobia, oppression as well as a touch of genocide. This makes it much easier to relate to as it actually included something that one might expect to find in the real world (albeit with less magic and horned qunaries). "Shit just got real". I wouldn't mind, though, a return of the supernatural in DA3, and it does seem that that is the direction the games are taking (Flemeth etc.).
"(...) blowing the Chantry story out of the Water.": Good point! It very nearly disproves it, unless there is something special about the Black/Golden City: "Even the most powerful demons seem to avoid the place". I would just like to add, as an addition to the of the Taint originating beyond the Fade, that there are speculations in the Forum about it originating underground, somehow connected to the Primeval Thaig, Dwarves imperviousness to magic and the lyrium idol. Most of such theories tend to be beyond far-fetched, but this one seem to have a certain appeal and empirical logic behind it. The two theories are not mutually exclusive, though. -->Emil Olai (talk) 10:59, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

And Avernus makes it infinitely clear that his work is almost usless within moral constrats. Without human subjects, the research has been slowed to a claw and persumably can go only so far.--Ironreaper (talk) 23:44, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least his research yielded some results, and it proves that ethical research of Blood Magic is at least possible, and fruitful. Unfortunately, this site lacks a full recite of his letter, but I do not think he commented much upon his research, other than that it was slow and difficult to prove certain hypotheses if restricted in DA:O. Who is to say that restriction did not do more than slow him down. -->Emil Olai (talk) 00:09, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

And that is just hopeless optimism. Avernus said he doesn’t have much time anyway. you can only go so far without human sacrifices. But he wasn’t the only one studying demons and blood magic. Shale's owner was do it too.--Ironreaper (talk) 00:38, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

We'll see. Since they mentioned an encoded letter of important information addressed to the Commander of the Grey it seems likely that we are in for a large revelation in DA3. I look forward to it. -->Emil Olai (talk) 00:50, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

We can hope, though as dlc its affect has to be limited.--Ironreaper (talk) 05:38, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

We will see, but Bioware has already shown that it is willing to go far with its DLC. Just look at Shadowbrokers Lair and Arrival in Mass Effect. Awakening is also a good example, but I think that should rather be counted as a separate game. -->Emil Olai (talk) 10:59, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Even LOTSB will not have much of an effect on ME3. this isnt a matter of "if they will" but practicallity. a dlc that people may not have played siple cannot have that much effect on the gameplay, else the efforts of the programmers who made it will only be seen by a few and those who have not will be at a disadvantag. that is way the only difference Averus makes is a new potion. nothing more.--Ironreaper (talk) 12:17, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

LOTSB did make a huge impact on the Mass Effect universe, but more in the terms of lore than game-play, and that is what one might expect also from DLC for DA2. Soldier's Peak also left an interesting impact on the lore, as it explored the history of Fereldan, but more importantly, the attitudes of the Wardens towards Blood Magic, demonology, etc. (as well as why they were kicked out of Fereldan in the first place). But you are right - any sort of revelation will likely be limited. Though that does not stop me from getting exited.^^ -->Emil Olai (talk) 12:26, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

What Anders did was not necessary at all. He started a war. Mages and Templars are supposed to be like those in Ferelden. Mages don't do blood magic and templars just do their own duty.68.200.118.153 (talk) 05:02, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

The war had been brewing a long time already. The incident of the Ferelden Circle in DA:O, and Wynne's side quest in Awakening shows this. What Anders did was to speed up the process, and eliminating a way to go back to the Status Quo, with all its customary persecution and oppression. However, his methods were far from "elegant", and might still prove to do more damage than good. It will be exiting to see how it turns out in DA#, as such acts can only be said to have been legitimate retrospectively, if at all. -->Emil Olai (talk) 17:46, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

More likely as the WERE in Ferelden... as to we do not know what decided the Chantry after the Abomination thing in the Circle of Mages there and since the last reference of Varric to the war: "You have lost all the circles... and I've heard that and the Templars rebelled" Obviously this is happening all across the Theads. Belov 05:22, March 28, 2011 (UTC)


Finally having finished DA2, I have to say I do not agree with what Anders did. And while my mage Hawke did not agree with the Templar excesses in Kirkwall, Anders went too far. Plus, he took advantage of Hawke's friendship. At the end, my mage Hawke killed Anders for the needless deaths of innocents, betraying his friendship, and fearing that Anders/Justice had become an abomination. Gruedragon (talk) 14:15, March 28, 2011 (UTC)


I think that Anders' actions were necessary, sadly. My Warden was a mage and when asked for a boon, she wanted the freedom of Ferelden's Circle. From what I've seen (or read) after that, it accomplished nothing. My point is, two very powerful and imporant people, the king and the bloody hero of Ferelden, tried to free one Circle PEACEFULLY and it didn't work. To solve something without violence, the other (more powerful) party in the conflict must be inclined to listen and to give in to a point. The Chantry is anything but that. And if you oppress somebody with such harsh and cruel methods (and Tranquility IS cruel, it's just as much mind control as blood magic), you can't be too surprised if it all blows up in your face (quite literally in this case). Honestly, I'm surprised something like this didn't happen sooner, because of the mages or the elves.--Morgan21590 (talk) 14:56, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what did happen with the Fereldan Circle? The only time it is mentioned, they say that Mages are not as oppressed there as in Kirkwall, but other than that: nothing. Good point with the Mind Control aspect Tranquillisation (I am not sure if that sounds right...).

I don't really agree with Anders as it was wrong but just image the chantry filled with...how can I say it politly?... well all those priests that did bad things to child in there and a reaper ship comes and blows it up... God that sounds bad! Anyway my main warden is Dalish and I prefer the dalish beliefs to the chantries ones... --Xxellenmaysongxx (talk) 18:41, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! And it is quite interesting that the Dalish seem to have a very different attitude towards their religion. In party banter with Anders, I think I remember Merrill pretty much admitting that their religion are just pretty stories to give a nice suggestion to how the world became as it is-->Emil Olai (talk) 20:33, March 28, 2011 (UTC):
Merrill: Your "Maker" is a story you humans use to explain the world.
Merrill: We have our own stories. I don't need to borrow yours.

The Fereldan Circle was freer before and after the events of DAO; the point of mentioning it was to illustrate how remarkable the level of oppression is in Kirkwall. I don't think any other Circle calls their base "The Gallows", after all. Greagor and Irwin had a mutual respect and shared power, the rampant egos and hysteria were the exception rather than the rule. DokEnkephalin (talk) 22:13, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

The Irving/Gregoir symbiosis is a good example of how Mages and Templars can work together; the project of Thrask a better one. It is just a shame that the Chantry is not even willing to try to establish something similar, with or without locking everyone away. -->Emil Olai (talk) 00:15, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately everyone kept trodding on Thrask's good intentions and best efforts. He doesn't have the solid enforcement arm that leadership requires, especially to bring the conflict under control and refocus on the original intent of their charter. Greagor and Irwin were both willing and able to police their own and their counterparts, and building a complete Circle requires that dual leadership. This is why Cullen seems the better choice for the templars; he could be firm when necessary and he can accept an alternate perspective. Despite the alternate endings of DAO making a paranoid reactionate out of him, he's grown beyond the scarring experience of the Fereldin possession without losing sight of the dangers and need for vigilance. There just needs to be an equal on the mages' side. Tolerance can come later, after simply laying down the law and forcing them to face the same struggles. It should be the same Gallows for the templars as it is for the mages. And maybe one day they could change the name and get rid of those damn weeping statues. DokEnkephalin (talk) 01:42, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Mages are a dangerous breed, even the best intentioned of them have the POTENTIAL to become demoniacally possessed and unleash all manner of hellish chaos upon the world. They are regulated and locked up for a reason and I think that Anders is a perfect example of this, if even a Grey Warden apostate can turn mass murderer then what chance do the rest of the mage community stand when it comes to temptation ? The only good apostate is a dead apostate, LONG LIVE THE TEMPLARS !!

Well, it is ironic that you declare Anders a mass murderer when you are screaming for the exact same thing. Had you'd been in charge in Kirkwall, I think it would have turned to war much before it did, with the rest of the Templars rebelling against you as well. Even Meredith didn't want to kill all Apostates before the very end, and she was then far beyond her breaking point. -->Emil Olai (talk) 10:59, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

im pretty sure he was trying to be ironic is a duke nukam kind of way.--Ironreaper (talk) 12:17, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right! I do tend to take these things a bit too seriously. -->Emil Olai (talk) 12:35, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
He does make a good point, though; the story did lean heavily on that potential for possession by making demons jump out of everyone's bag of tricks. Starting to sympathize with mages a little? Here, have an abomination! If the predisposition for demonism is as rampant among mages as the game demonstrates, then Vengeance really is the last straw that justifies slaughtering them all. DokEnkephalin (talk) 12:29, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Do not forget that the ones we see turn to Blood Magic or becomes Abominations are said to be a minority. True, this minority is bigger in Kirkwall than in the rest of Thedas, but it is still not representative for all Mages. And I cannot emphasise enough the huge injustice it is to kill someone or stow them away for something they might do. -->Emil Olai (talk) 12:35, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
I know, but the story keeps shoving the potential into the player's face; every time push comes to shove, time to whip out the blood magic and let loose the demons! It wasn't bad enough that Orsino was covering for them, which thrust the burden of enforcement even more firmly on Meredith, but had to get his hands into it himself. What, Elemental and Primal trees can't be destructive enough? I know first-hand from gameplay that they can be, and more efficient than blood magic. But every character who isn't jumping off the slippery slope is either dying like animals or waiting meekly for their shackles, so they aren't much of a representation. DokEnkephalin (talk) 13:27, March 29, 2011 (UTC)


I agree with Anders beacuse Meredith had the idol going more insane as time goes on ordering the Mage's death anyway Plus the world ain't going to change unless someone makes it. VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

I watched this conversation again, the deception, manipulation, the way he deflects questioning with an accusation, there's no way he believes he's right, and he deserves execution. If at any moment he had the courage to come forward and really expose his conviction to challenge, I may not agree with him, but at least I'd respect him. I'd know he believes in his righteousness, and he just might persuade me after all. As it stands, the way he squirms while jerking Hawke around makes him look even more cowardly for an attack on the people who don't even have the means to commit the crimes he wants vengeance for. Leaving the moral considerations aside, terrorist acts like this have never in history been effective. DokEnkephalin (talk) 17:42, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

That scene plays out rather differently from a rival!romance perspective (and presumably from a strictly rival one, no romance to be had?). It is clear if you have the conversation from that route, that Justice, in his twisted form of Vengeance, is in control here, not Anders. If anything, that scene makes it clear that Anders doesn't really WANT to go through with the plan, but has lost his will utterly to the demon within. Here's a youtube showing one outcome of that conversation's dialog choices: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNqXCuEQ-0I 69.146.172.126 (talk) 20:46, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I hadn't seen that before. That puts Anders' submission to execution in a different light. I'm still not sure executing him is wrong; he lit the powderkeg, so he remains the best candidate for sacrificial lamb. DokEnkephalin (talk) 12:41, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with his ideals if not his actions. I wanted to smack him in the face immediately afterward for being such a fool. I did not kill him for one he coming from a good place and just trying to do what he thinks is right and for two I am nothing if not loyal. Once someone is my friend it is nigh impossible for to get me to turn on them. though there are always exceptions.

On the whole mages vs. Templars situation I think that the mages should be allowed more freedom but there is a good reason they are under guard. There are good mages of course but temptation is a terrible thing and not everyone can resist it. The Templars are much to blame in this case for the more pressure they keep putting on them the more they are backing them into a corner and when you back someone into a corner sometimes they'll do anything to get away. There has to be balance where the mages have their freedom but the Templars have enough control that everywhere doesn't end up like Tevinter. I honestly think there should be some sort of organization that is separate from both mages and Templars to be a mediator between the two and able to step in if one side starts to gain too much power. Creating such a thing would be incredibly difficult of course for it seems like one of the issues where there is little to no middle ground but it is worth a try and certainly better then one group ruling over the other and thousands of deaths in a war that will otherwise not have a good outcome whatever it may be.


Ander is a Terrorist. Civil disobedience is the way to go.

How? They risk being branded Maleficar and execution if they resist. -->Emil Olai (talk) 19:20, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Civil disobedience works better with solid leadership and political relations. The templars can only get so much mileage out of slinging accusations if there's enough public support for the movement. Unfortunately Orsino wasn't the man for the job, but if there were such a leader, Anders actions would've completely obliterated what chance they had. DokEnkephalin (talk) 19:41, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Normally, you would be right. But in this case... Mages are hated and feared throughout Thedas - it would probably take centuries of abuse for the public opinion to change. Admittedly, much of the public opinion is form out of ignorance and Chantry propaganda - most people who know Mages tend to sympathise with them. But as Mages are hidden away from the eyes of non-Mages... -->Emil Olai (talk) 20:25, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Actual y, in the case of Kirkwall, Cullen even tells you that many of the citizens in the city are more likely to close their doors to templars and hide an apostate from them rather than offer them a bed. By the beginning of Act 3, if you talk to the nobles gathered in the square after siding with Orsino, many of them tell you that, despite their opinion of mages, even they can see that Meredith and her templars are overstepping their charges. More than anywhere else, public opinion of mages is more sympathetic in Kirkwall than to that of the templars; even some of the templars hold more sympathy to the mages than anywhere else and actually help some escape by destroying their phylacteries. Unfortunately though, since the templars are Kirkwalls main military force, if the public was to say revolt against Meredith, it would still end badly, with only the City Guard standing between them and the templars blades. This is why I wish I could become Viscount without having to have the templars support in order to do so, and least then I probably could have found some middle ground, and perhaps have prevented from things going as far as they did. I wouldn't care if Meredith would have tried to overthrow my Hawke for thinking otherwise; if she wants to kill my Hawke for not being %100 pro-templar, then I say bring it. Unlike Dumar, I can hold my own. Sevarian10 (talk) 21:24, March 29, 2011 (UTC)Sevarian10

What Cullen says was that the Kirkwall people do not like or sympathise with the templars. That does not mean they care about mages. Whether Cullen is willing to acknowledge it or not, templars have established themselves as the dictators of Kirkwall and that is what its citizens hate. They couldn’t care less about mage treatment, but they do not what the templars ruling over them like Orlais did before them and the Imperium did before that. And the fact that templars have so much power leads to a great deal of corruption and fanaticism, since they do not need to answer for their actions--Ironreaper (talk) 23:51, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Hahahha xD. As I keep track still of this topic YOU ALL MUST AGREE to the decision of BioWare that in DA2 there is no neutral decision of the problem. Just look the topic and you'll see that even the fans can not get to a consensus... How can then the "real" mage-chantry get to one? No way. No you see why they made it real? This topic proves it!Belov 21:07, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Out of all the arguments made here, yours by far is the one I can truly agree with. We can argue for months, maybe even years about Anders actions, and none of us will ever truly see an end to it or ever get a conclusive answer. Why? because like I said in another thread, there is no conclusive answer to this topic; DA2 is a non-conclusive game. We will never get our answer, and we will all just have to live with that fact, pro-Anders or no. Sevarian10 (talk) 21:24, March 29, 2011 (UTC)Sevarian10
True, but it is still interesting to discuss it among other adherents. This particular thread has been surprisingly good at not repeating itself (at least not too musch), and it is fun to see how much lore we learn from each other. I, for one, had forgotten about the nobels, so thanks. =) -->Emil Olai (talk) 22:17, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Also true. I've actually learned more about what characters in-game had to add to the topic by just reading from what people had written here, and people have made a lot of good points on both sides. It's also true, however, that some people here have just given simply blunt answers, but for the most part, many of the comments here have been informative and enlightening. Even if we did eventually come to a conclusive answer, we would still probably keep debating it for many months to come. This thread is like a good debate, and what can I say? I'm a sucker for a good debate :p Sevarian10 (talk) 22:39, March 29, 2011 (UTC)Sevarian10
I thought the original question was whether you agree with what Anders did, and that phrasing can only get subjective answers rather than conclusive ones. DokEnkephalin (talk) 23:09, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
The conclusive answers part refers to the questions concerning whether what Anders did was wrong or not (well to me at least) which has come up often in this thread. Sevarian10 (talk) 23:38, March 29, 2011 (UTC)Sevarian10
Yeah I really liked arguing about this and hearing everyone opinion, each of us getting different "ace" form the lore to prove better... I think this will be one of the longest threads born of DA2, and I do not mean just in the forum, but as whole. And I think anyone who did want a some kind of middle decision to be there in DA2 should read this thread to see why there was no way to be one. Like ;) Belov 23:57, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
At least a very pertinent one, as most threads in for example Bioware's own forum tend to consist of very short lines, nowhere near the reasoning, both in length and relevance, that is seen here. I do envy them the Bioware staff participation, though... ..>Emil Olai (talk) 00:23, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
Yep... me too... we can just hope that someday they be'll thankful for the wiki and just give us a visit. Belov 00:30, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
I actually think the writers could really benefit from the Dragon Age Wikia, as fans in discussions like this one tend to really challenge each other in terms of lore and interpretations of it. And no one ever gets away with a false statement. I wonder if they have the same control of the lore as their fans have. -->Emil Olai (talk) 00:50, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
I actually find it quite likely that they take at least a part of their inspiration from lore-forums, though not necessarily from this one. A shame if not, as we are awesome. -->Emil Olai (talk) 00:50, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to have an option to kill Anders before he got a chance to blow up anything. Without the incident, Meredith wouldn't have a reason (yet) to invoke the Right of Annulment. Then I would secretly assassinate Meredith, put myself on the Viscount's throne, make Thrask or Cullen the Knight Commander, kick Orsino's ass and make Bethany the First Enchanter. =]] Hpa tqn (talk) 04:04, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

......................................................................................................................

The Templars are the richeous, holy guardians of the Chantry and try to protect the population from the likes of "Anders the terrorist" and his sympathisers. I completely disagree with what Anders did on every level, he completely proved the point that Meredith was trying to make, if you back a mage into a corner, what's the first thing he's going to do ? Resort to blood magic or consort with demons, even the first enchanter ( Orsino ) resorted to it when his back was to the wall and turned on Hawke and his companions who were trying to help the mages ! Grace turns on you and resorts to blood magic towards the end even if you were completely sympathetic to her cause in your first encounter with her. As Wesley said at the beginning of the game at least with the darkspawn, you know where you stand, their intent is always the same but with mages, you never know ! ( paraphrasing ) Lets face it, at the end of the day, if it weren't for mages becoming too powerful and power hungry, there would be no darkspawn or blights to worry about in the first place. I'm with the templars every step of the way, you give a mage an inch, they'll take your soul !

"The righteous stand before the darkness, and the Maker shall guide their hand." ARC Rorschach

......................................................................................................................

Read the gorram thread! As I believe we have already indicated, Mages did not cause the Blight. In fact, the only source we have of a supposed origin of the Blight is the Chantry, and they are far from unbiased in this. Much make it seem as if it is nothing but Chantry propaganda. And most people would panic and do stupid things when backed into a corner, with no way out and their life at stake. So why back them into a corner in the first place and have the threat of execution hanging over their heads in the first place? Supervision would be necessary, but there are many factors that indicate that a lot fewer Mages would turn to Blood Magic and Demonology without the Templar at their backs. For the most part, we all seem to agree upon this in this thread. The only thing we disagree about (except for Anders) is the extent of Templar control and supervision. -->Emil Olai (talk) 19:06, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
To the righteous guy: READ FORUM RULES - SIGN THE DAMN POSTS, SO I DO NOT SPEAK TO NOONE. And now on the topic. As Emil Olai said read the thread.. maybe not the whole but a little up specially me and him had a quite good argue with quite justiful answers. You do forget that in Origins there were mages who did not turn to BM in the corner. What is more what is the difference between a tyrany military rule and terrorism? In the first more people die, but it is considered the right of the ruller. That is what Kirgwall has turn in to. And you can't just inprison people for life for how they were born. And by all means who the f*** let you decide what is good or bad? Why is blood magic bad? Becaus you are a religious "lover"(if I it was not for the forum rules I would have used another word) believe the "all knowing" Chantry. But that is not what the others should do. And as there is a saying "Weak are afraid of Chaos, the strong learns to control it." Humanity has not prosper only when it learn to embrace new ideas fast. Just because some people are afraid of magic that does not make it bad. What is more - if your "Maker" has made was, if it is so bad why would he give some people magic and others not? Belov 21:23, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

If I could, I would keep Hawke in the middle always. And I guess that’s the truth. Anders plays a pivotal role in setting the machine into motion. I don’t agree with what he did, but after all those quests I could understand his act and why he did it. Thus I wouldn’t kill him or let him go away. I asked him to join my party again. (go back to your land DLC Sebastian :P ) Also, a line of thought: If mages win, centuries later Anders would be an actual hero in DA universe. If templars win, Anders will be an abomination terrorist and a reason to always kill the mages in the future (from birth or childhood). It’s interesting to think about that. Acher4 (talk) 13:29, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Same here. If possible I would have remained neutral throughout the whole game, which I tried to do my first playthrough, but obviously couldn't keep up, which was a bummer. An interesting point though in regards to Anders future. After all, history is not written by truth, it is written by the victors; We just haven't seen this wars victor yet. Sevarian10 (talk) 21:44, March 30, 2011 (UTC)Sevarian10

......................................................................................................................

@ Sevarian

A - I should get your keyboard checked out, your caps lock button seems to have jammed

B - Take a chill pill and a deep breath !

RE - " What the f**k lets me decide whats good or bad " ? It's called an opinion, most people have them and quite often, other people will have ones different from our own. The thread starter was asking for my opinions on Anders' actions at the end of DA2 so I gave them. Ergo ( In MY opinion I was right ) in YOUR opinion, not so much, obviously, but that doesn't make you right either ! ARC Rorschach

......................................................................................................................

I was quite... harsh, but that was my intention. The point I wanted to make is that if the Chantry says that magic is good or bad - it is not true. As the Qun would say "Do not blame the sword, but the hand who wields it." - it is always down to the particular person. That is with everything. Having such order as Templars is the same - what if the Divin became corrupted? .... So it is never magic/power/invention that are good or bad, it is the persons who use them determinating it. And in your post there were a lot of more talk about magic being bad rather than Anders is not right. I do agree he is not right, as will always do - and in the game I've killed him each time for that. But it's not magic or mages to blame for that. Belov 01:49, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

......................................................................................................................

LOL Don't worry about it, I enjoy the thrust and riposte of a good debate :O) I'm just in a very anti-mage mind set atm. I'll explain, I'm an old school role player, by that, I mean the way it should be played, with funny shaped dice, pen, paper and a good imagination lol. So when I play a quality rpg on my xbox, I tend to get very drawn in to the game, which isn't hard to do, especially with Bioware's writing. I even give my Hawke their own little back story ( sad, I know lol )My current run through with the game is a Female 1h sword + Shield Templar/Berserker spec Warrior, she's a Templar wannabe ( I really hope you get an option to join the order in DA3 ) She is a devout follower of the Chantry and believes emphatically in their teachings and is ruthless in her upholding of them, ergo she firmly believes that power hungry, ancient Tevinter magisters were responsible for the darkspawn which obviously taints her opinion of mages ( including Bethany - She's REALLY horrible to Beth, well, she's pretty horrible to everyone apart from Fenris as he shares her opinion on mages )I'm doing this run through without using ANY mages at all ( or trying to ) Some might think it a little weird, I look at it as a way of keeping the game fresh, trying out new ideas, I've already run the game through with all the classes so now I'm looking for new ideas for run throughs. Anyhoo, hope this goes some way towards explaining my current " I hate mages " mode LOL !!

PS - I don't fancy Ander's chances of staying alive at the final battle when my Hawke gets the option to either tell him to clear off, join her or kill him.....hmmmmmmmmm !! ARC Rorschach

......................................................................................................................

Nice that you get in the game that much, as I do. But my Hawke is a 2H Warrior Reaver/Berserk with a big Bloom axe and playing solo... most of the time (some bosses are... make you look stupid on solo). But my heart, as his, always lays with the Qun. I earned the respect of the Arishok from the first game and always respected him. But as I'm not like the Qun - a whole nation, I do not see that much "inner" treat from mages more than any other outlaw... so I do treat them the same way.Belov 02:40, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Wow! Impressive, indeed^^. I think we who have not played the old fashion RPGs (would like to, though) tend to put a lot of ourselves into our characters, ans thus, we take debates like this quite seriously. But as this is an out-of-game forum, maybe you would like to share your actual thoughts with us? (Wathcmen, ftw, by the way!). -->Emil Olai (talk) 11:18, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

......................................................................................................................

When it came down to that moment I could only think what is best for my party my people and Anders had put them in danger started a war that would rip them apart yet he was one of them that was how he betrayed me. Yet I remembered the good times and could tell he wanted to die and many of my companions felt the same so I killed him. As for the war I stood with my sister not the mages not the templars .When the morals are gray one protects thier own CentiumCuspis (talk) 07:25, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

......................................................................................................................

My OWN thoughts on the matter are, I think that the one thing the game does well is to present very compelling arguments for both sides, there's no clear cut bad guy in DA2. Yes Meredith is over exuberant with her literal interpretation of the law but up until she became tainted by the idol, her fanaticism was born of good intentions and the will to protect the city and it's population at any cost ( which is a Knight Commander's role surely ) On the other hand, mages DO need keeping in check, they possess powers way in advance of your average Joe public and should not be permitted to use them willy-nilly. I wish there was an option in the end battle to say " to hell with both of you " take them ALL on and place yourself, or someone of YOUR choosing as the new Viscount, but then I guess this would have serious ramifications for DA3.

PS - Watchmen is freakin AWESOME LOL !!!!

ARC Rorschach

I don't think Anders needed to blow up the Chantry. I already thought shit was going to go down with Orsino trying to appeal to the Grand Cleric. Are we positive Micheal Bay wasn't around during this game's production? Gaikang (talk) 17:02, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Lol, that would explain EVERYTHING! "We need more explosions, doesn't matter if they don't make sense or are unnecessary!!" "But Mr. Bay, the plot for the game is almost complete, I don't think.." "Do not care! MAKE IT SO!" XD Sevarian10 (talk) 20:07, March 31, 2011 (UTC)Sevarian10

I'm pro Mage but I'm also pro Templar at the same time. Do I agree with what Anders did to the Chantry? The real question is what has the Grand Cleric ever did to stop these alleged abuse against the mages in the circle in her jurisdiction? These mages do not have a voice. Very few people would actually stand up for them and for their human rights. When women mages in the circle bares a child the Templars immediately takes away their newborn children, and gives their child to the Chantry therefor forcing these newborn children to become an orphaned. The women are emotionally deprived from ever getting to know their child that they produced because their imprisoned in the circle.

Grand Cleric Elthina may come off as a very sweet docile old religious woman, but once you get to know who she really is and how she essentially has full control over the Templars (By having Lyrium as lavage) she no longer becomes this wonderful old woman that everyone in Kirkwall loves. She becomes a tyrant, and a Drug-lord. She had every opportunity to change things, and she did nothing about it. She treats Meredith and Orsino like children out in public, and spoils and favors her Knight-commander daughter more. With the kind of history that Meredith has she should have never been appointed as Knight-Commander. Her decision on giving her this title made the situation even more worst. She did nothing as Meredith became more insane. Even some of the members of her own order started having doubts about her... why didn't the Grand Cleric see this?

Do I think she deserves to die? In moral standards no she does not deserve to die. Nobody deserves to die but what Anders did was justified. I don't agree with what he did, but I can reason with him for doing it. On my first game play I executed him but rest of my newly developed characters I've allowed him to live because I can reason with him.

The First Enchanter Orsino, and his involvements with the mage that murdered my mother, and then used the same method to attack me at the end is the reason why I'm also pro Templar. It's mages like him are the reasons why the Templars are so important to the community. --LordRaijin (talk) 18:22, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.