This Forum has been archived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 3396 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. (talk) 04:29, March 21, 2011 (UTC)Trader347

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)

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)

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. (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. (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.

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)

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.-- (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... (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. -- (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!@# (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. (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 better than Anders' insistence that all Templars are cruel and diseased.
        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 -- (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 ----

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)

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