if he kills anders in the end

anonymous asked:

So i very strongly sided with the mages until i saw what it turned into at the end of da:2 and what happens in da:i, i can fully support wanting more freedoms and to be given a chance at a real life, but what it looks like theyre trying to do is rebuild the tevinter imperium and i cannot support that, but i still dont agree with the templars either, and honestly this whole thing couldve been avoided if the chantry had been a little more lenient with the circle

What it leaded to in DA2? I don’t know what you mean really. Unless you mean Anders’ actions, but he wasn’t acting with any other mages. And at the end of the game he was so fused with Justice I don’t think we can even be sure he would’ve acted the same way if he were just himself. Also, what it lead to? It led to the mages - who did not do anything - all going to be killed because of it, well actually Meredith had already sent for the right of annulment before Anders’ actions so… yeah I can’t really see how I’m meant to blame mages for that? There are a few instances in da2 when mages do bad things, but they’re always a reaction to the insane amount of abuse in that circle.

And what do you mean in da:i? In what way are they ‘rebuilding the Tevinter Imperium’? Please send in another ask because I don’t get it? I might be missing something?

I do agree that the Chantry could’ve avoided the whole thing, but it would have meant an entire restructuring of the Circle, not just ‘being a little more lenient’. The Circle would have to stop being a prison and become an actual place where mages can be save and learn in safety. And I don’t think the Chantry would ever be willing to do so, considering how much power and money they would lose.

I view the question of ‘templars vs mages’ as simply this: are the horrors of the circle a justified necessary evil to protect the rest of the population from the possible crimes, or accidental destruction caused by mages?

That’s the only question that matters. That’s where the true grey morality of this issue comes in. Do you think the chantry is right that mages are so inherently dangerous that they need to be held prisoner their entire lives? That the Chantry has the right to decide which of them need to be made tranquil, or punished in other ways, and which entire circles get to be murdered down to the last child?

My answer is always going to be no. That’s why I support the mages. Always. And not just because we’ve already seen more peaceful solutions in game.

Just think about it, in the real world if we determine which groups are most likely to commit violent crimes, would you support pre-emptively locking them up? (Remember, modern day weapons can be as dangerous as any magic we’ve seen in game.) Probably not.

And let’s be clear, even a circle where there is no abuse is still a horrific idea in principle:

- Being locked up the rest of your life

- cut of from family

- not allowed to go outside 

- not allowed to form romantic attachments

- not allowed to have a family (and having any child you might have taken away from you)

- living with armed men instructed to kill you if you necessary 

- being constantly told you’re basically a walkign bomb so dangerous the world needs to be protected from you

- Living with the threat of the right of annulment your whole life

- Living with the threat of being made tranquil (yes yes, until you pass a horrifying test, unless you live in one of the circles that ignore that rule and oh yes the chantry and the circle has a huge monetary incentive to make you tranquil or suggest you allow them to make you tranquil even before the test)

Even if this prison - and it is a prison no matter how cosy the beds - doesn’t suffer from any abuse of power it’s still a horror show. But then I don’t think there will be a circle with no abuse. Just because predatory people are often dawn to positions where they can enact abuse and get away with it and the circle is the perfect place; no one gives a shit about the mages. Also, the only circles we’ve seen in game have been abusive, I find it odd to presume there must be a perfect circle where there is only the horrors of it being a prison.

And I haven’t even gotten into the whole idea that the Chantry makes money off making people tranquil, which kinda motivates them to make more mages tranquil, if only to keep the money flowing. Or that if the Chantry ever admitted that mages don’t need constant surveillance it means they will either have to admit that the templars are mainly there to be the Chantry’s military arm, or cut down on how many templars there are, and so weaken the Chantry’s power. (That’s what I mean when I say getting rid of the Circles would cost the Chantry too much.)

On the subject of ‘trying to rebuild the Tevinter Imperium’, I have to say the abuses of the Tevinter Imperium are not caused by magic, so assuming a society where Mages are free and able to be in positions of power, is going to be ‘like the Tevinter Imperium’ is just not how it works.

Slavery isn’t something exclusive to magic (well using spirits as slaves as well might be), and (blood) magic, is just the tool they use to enact their cruelty. If they had no magic they would find other ways. And to be frank, while I’m sure the other nations we have seen in game would claim moral superiority over Tevinter, I don’t think they can. Look at the way they treat the elves? Look at what the Chantry has done? Profiting off making people tranquil, making Templars addicted to something they control?

Also, remember the elves being sold into slavery in da:o? Do you think that was the only time that happened? It seems pretty unlikely doesn’t it?

So yes Tevinter is horrible, but I think the problem with saying ‘they want to rebuild the Tevinter Imperium’ is that it fails to recognise that the other nations have their own horrors and that depending on who (or what race) you are in Ferelden or Orlais, your life might already be as bad as that of the lowliest person in Tevinter.

It’s easy to judge the mage rebellion for causing too much destruction etc etc, but it’s not like the Chantry would ever have willingly let them go. The mages were pushed in a corner, they didn’t one day decide that they would cause this. I would love it if peaceful revolution was possible but it isn’t. It’s always a question of what are you willing to sacrifice to gain your freedom.

DA:I could have been a great morally muddled story about what is justified in the name of revolution, of freedom. It could’ve shown us a mage rebellion where some are forced to fight, where some mages only take revenge for the abuse they suffered, while others desperately tried to find peaceful ways to change the world. It could have shown us templars being pushed to the edge by the chantry, and those who gleefully hunt and kill mages. It could’ve shown us exactly how much it costs templars to break with the Chantry.

Cullen does to a degree show us and in DA2 we had Samson, but I would’ve liked something like a Knight-Captain who objected morally to the abuses of the Chantry, tried to reason with them to go against amoral orders and ended up with the Chantry cutting off his lyrium supply so he was forced to watch the templars under his command suffer and a few of them die. Actually that would’ve made a great quest that with show us exactly how little control templars really have.

I’m just going to end with some links with more information on the mages and the Circle/ Chantry/ templars. I think all these help to get the whole picture on the situation for mages, necessary to understand why revolution was unavoidable (and before you judge their rebellions as ‘going too far.’) 

1. A post discussing why Anders did what he did and why other options weren’t available. I’m not entirely decided on whether I support Anders’ actions myself, but this is an interesting read on why the mages had to rebel to gain any power and why it’s difficult to judge them for it. It also touches on more abuses of the Chantry.

2. A post with a number of reactions to the idea of the Circle being ‘a nice place’ which it can’t be by its very nature. Also mentions some other abuses that will happen in even ‘peaceful circles’ like Anders’ punishment of solitary confinement for a year, which is literal torture and if you want to understand to what extent a quick google search will do on why solitary confinement is torture.

3. A great post about why tranquility is not a mercy and in fact a system that is incredibly vulnerable to abuse (and not just in da2). Also touches on how the Circle provides the Chantry with funds (and so power, which of course makes their ‘magic is evil we will protect’ you bs stink a little more.)

4. A post discussing why not all templars can ‘just stop taking lyium’ which helps to show that they’re basically trapped in this system as well.

5. A post combining resources about the abuses the mages face in da2, I’d recommend reading it even if you feel you know all of them already because I’ve played da2 many many times and I was surprised by some of these. Also remember that just because this is the worst circle we’ve seen it does not mean the abuses are unique to this circle.

6. A post explaining more about the Chantry and why it needs its military arm, and how it abuses that power. ties in to how they can’t admit that mages don’t need constant surveillance without either admitting the real use of templars.

7. A post about the theory that templars aren’t meant to protect mages but are meant to make sure there aren’t too many mages. (In other words, they are there to kill mages.) I don’t necessarily agree with everything in the post, though it does make sense that the Chantry would limit how many mages there are in any one circle to prevent an uprising. Still the post contains some interesting discussions about the templars tactics and how they don’t make sense if they’re meant to just protect mages. This of course does not mean every day templars are aware of what the real order are and I imagine there are templars who truly believe they are meant to protect mages.

8. A really good post on why Meredith wasn’t ‘just doing what she thought best’ and was pretty horrible before the red lyrium business. Also, while it’s easy to say meredith does not represent the Chantry the fact is the Chantry never stepped in and at the very least it shows how rife this system is for abuse and how little people or the Chantry care what happens to mages.

Watch on momo-yuki.tumblr.com


So siegburgerdaddy from twitter pointed out that the yoi staff hasn’t used the footage of victor skating at the beginning of this video yet

We all know that the starting pose for this is his routine Stammi Vicino, Non te Andere that brought Yuuri and Victor together. Considering what Yuuri said to Victor at the end of ep 11, perhaps in the final episode, Victor will skate this for Yuuri. Its his way to tell Yuuri that he wants them to stay together and Yuuri answers by joining him on the ice, thus we have the Stammi Vicino, Non te Andere duet we’re all thirsting for

luxray-bans  asked:

Maybe it's a willpower thing. Anders is in control at the end and willing to let Hawke kill him for what he did. In the story it doesn't sound like he's in control of his body nor would he be willing to die

Yeah, okay I can see that. 

It just seems Justice is pretty close to the surface in that particular scene and Anders isn’t so much conceding to death as willing to die for his cause, just in that moment. The only reason I say that is because for a rival Hawke, he does have a banter after (if you let him live and get him to side with the Templars) where he is actually more aware of his actions than a moment ago and talks about wanting to die for them out of guilt and disgust. 

But it being Anders own will to give up his life could definitely be a factor, I’m kind of wondering now if maybe the “Did You Agree With Anders’ Actions” Tile might be used for this? Just as a possible future outcome: where if you answered yes, even a killed Anders returns in some aspect, but a “no” dead one does not.

Which all speculation, it’s just half interest in seeing Justice!Anders return from the dead to give my Templar Hawke an ass-kicking and half wondering what the hell the “Did You Agree With Anders’ Actions Tile” is actually going to be used for beyond DA:I dialogue.

okay honestly i lose all my shit when anders stans are all “varric is so ooc in inquisition i can’t believe he hates poor little anders who did nothing”

like god can you hear yourself? Anders pretty much singlehandedly blew up Varric’s hometown–the town he was born and raised in, but also made Varric’s best friend complicit in planting the bomb in the first place. Not only was his hometown destroyed, with how well known Varric is, he probably knew several people who were killed in the blast. And to continue, because of what Anders did on his own volition, Varric ended up being questioned by Cassandra and the Inquisition.

Varric LOVES Kirkwall, hell he goes back and rebuilds that city he cares about.

Is it really so hard to think that he would hold a grudge and be angry at the person who destroyed his city, who killed people he knew, and who involved his best friend in the destruction of the city?

Would YOU be able to look at someone you know the same way if if you knew they blew up a building and killed many people?

OK folks, lemme sit you down and talk about Sebastian Vael for a sec.

specifically in a game where Anders is alive and Seb invades Kirkwall.

Please consider this.

Whether you like it or not, try and justify it or not, Anders’s actions ended up killing every last authority figure in Kirkwall.

No Viscount (even if Hawke becomes Viscount they disappear). No Knight-Commander. No First Enchanter. No Reverend Mother.

If you thought Kirkwall was bad before, imagine it without any authority figures at all.

Now, let’s look at how the Free Marches work. Each city is an independent city-state, but they are also loosely allied with each other. Kirkwall’s instability harms every city-state.

So now you have Sebastian, who is not only dealing with the death of a woman he revered as a mother, but is also dealing with the fact that the man whose actions led to all of this is still alive. And on top of all that, Kirkwall as an economic and political center is destroyed. If you recall, Sebastian mentions quite clearly in DA2 how Starkhaven is one of Kirkwall’s strongest allies trade-/politics-wise, and Sebastian, being a very politically-savvy person who could reclaim his rightful place at Starkhaven at any point, is well aware of this. And also aware that Kirkwall’s instability is very dangerous for Starkhaven, as well as the rest of the Free Marches, as well.

Now if you’re not quite sure how independent city-states work, let me just quickly explain that Kirkwall being an independent city-state means that Sebastian can’t just come in and be like “OK guys, I’m just going to help bring in some order here” to help restore stability even if he wanted to. Politically he must bring a show of force if he is going to have any sort of leadership in Kirkwall at all.

Is invading the city a bit rash? Perhaps, but knowing Sebastian and everything I’ve just explained, I think it’s safe to say it was far more than a simple “MUST GET REVENGE FOR ELTHINA B/C HER MURDERER STILL LIVES” motivation. And times (as well as the people) are pretty fuckin desperate in Kirkwall, so it’s really no surprise the situation devolves quickly–something which should not be blamed entirely on Sebastian himself.

This has been a Sebastian Vael and general “please don’t oversimplify complicated and well-developed characters” PSA.

anonymous asked:

Do you feel Sebastians change after what Anders did at the end of the game was completly out of the blue? Because the way I see it he had already lost his family once and Elthina was kind of his defacto mother after that and Anders blows up the chantry (which I 100% support) and Sebastian has to lose his "family" all over again with the person who killed them right in front of him. Like I don't agree with what he did but i don't think it's out of the blue either? Idk what are ur thoughts

Mmm this is actually a big question. I’m obviously not terribly knowledgeable when it comes to Sebastian, so other people are welcome to jump in if they have more insight. Also holy shit, I think this is the first time I’ve talked about Sebastian for an extended period of time without saying a single thing that could even be construed as ‘critical’. Wow. Someone pat me on the back lmao.

I guess I can sort of see it both ways a bit? Like at first, I did think it was a bit out of the blue (I’m not sure if I agree with that now, but I’ll explain why first). Because his entire questline is basically about teaching him that revenge isn’t always the solution, that you don’t always have a clear picture of what’s happening, and that blindly killing those who wronged you is not the answer.

Because his family is killed, that’s bad, so he gets someone to go after the ones responsible (I never fully understood why he didn’t do it himself, maybe it’s just Elthina’s influence, idk). Hawke kills the mercenaries, Seb starts hanging out with them, and then finds out who was actually behind it (the Harimanns).

But when you go to confront the guilty party, things are not as they seem. There’s a demon involved, and their minds are no longer their own. That doesn’t make it right, of course not, but it becomes clear that maybe just straight up killing everyone involved wasn’t the answer, given that there was more going on than he thought. Or at least, that’s what I got out of his personal quests up to that point. I’m not sure if that’s what I was supposed to get, but that’s what I got.

So from that point of view, it looks almost as though all of his character development is just leaping right out the window at the end there. He spent the last few years with Hawke learning that maybe revenge isn’t the answer, but then immediately defaults back to it despite that.

This is how I saw it initially, though I no longer think that’s quite right. Something being out of character is a flaw with writing, while something being a poor decision or someone throwing away all the good they’ve learned over something traumatic is a flaw with the character themselves. And I think Sebastian giving up his ‘maybe revenge is bad after all’ after an event that is fairly traumatic for him does make sense. It’s not a good thing, but it is a believable thing. Thus it’s a character flaw, not a writing one. Important difference.

Because it’s exactly as you said. He already relies on Elthina pretty heavily before DA2 starts, and then his family is murdered. At that point, the Chantry becomes less his surrogate family, and more his real one. Hawke and co do have an impact on him, yes, but I’d say he relies on Hawke the least because, unlike most of the DA2 companions, he already has a support network. He has other people he can go to for help or just for good company. Compared to most of the other companions (save Aveline and maybe Varric), who have no one but Hawke and each other, in some cases. Sebastian found his family in the Chantry, the rest of the misfits found their family in Hawke and each other.

So his experiences and conversations with Hawke weigh some amount less than they do with the other companions, because he has other people he can rely on, people outside of Hawke’s little misfit group. I’ll bet you anything everything he talks about with Hawke is also talked about with at least Elthina, and the latter probably carries a touch more weight, given their relationship.

So the lessons Hawke teaches him don’t stick as much as they do with the other companions. And when Elthina is killed, the lessons she taught are forgotten in the moment of grief because he’s just lost his family (the closest thing he had) again. He’s suddenly back where he was 6 years ago when Hawke first saw him putting his little flyer up, except worse. His major support network (Elthina and the Chantry) is gone, and his secondary one (Hawke and co) had a major hand in that (and, if we’re talking my Hawke, actively supported it and is likely standing protectively between Sebastian and Anders at that moment, ready to defend her lover at all costs). So him resorting back to his old, vengeful ways does actually make sense. He has no reason not to.

So maybe a lot of this belief that it’s out of character comes from the perspective of how we view the other companions. The rest of the DA2 crew are misfits, mostly criminals, not welcome in most places, many of them are or were being actively hunted, and they have NO ONE to rely on save Hawke. Some of them build meaningful relationships with each other, but Hawke is still the nucleus of it all. This is where they get their support.

Sebastian isn’t like that. He has a support network well in place when we meet him. Hawke isn’t the basis of his social group, and it seems he doesn’t spend as much time with the Kirkwall crew as the rest do. Like even Fenris and Anders play cards together, this is a thing, but it seems Sebastian just doesn’t do that sort of thing. Maybe it’s partially lifestyle differences, but overall I just really don’t see him being as involved with the group as the rest of them are. He has other people, people who’s interests are more aligned with his, to spend time with. So he has to be considered in that light, as opposed to in the same light as the other characters.

I dunno. This was unexpectedly rambly and actually not mean for once. So I guess I do think it’s in character, but I think the reason people don’t see it as such is because they’re thinking of him the wrong way. His relationship to Hawke is different than the rest of the companions, less primary, and that’s why it’s easier for him to revert to his pre-Hawke personality when his actual primary support network is cut off.

I don't think Anders in Awakening killed his Templars

The physical in-game evidence doesn’t tell us anything either way. Yes, the Templar bodies showed burn damage – but Anders had been using an undirected AOE fire spell on a darkspawn a moment before. Anything in the way would have been caught in it (and this is DAO game engine, so we know friendly fire with mage magic is a thing.) There’s just no solid indication in that scene whether Anders killed them or not.

But I don’t think he did. And here’s why:

Awakening Anders isn’t a killer.

That’s meant as a personality assessment, not a moral call. In a game where the primary gameplay mechanic is killing stuff, being a killer is hardly a condemnable trait. Indeed, it’s a survival trait necessary for success in this world… but not in the Circle.

In the Circle, the rules are reversed. Aggression and violence are very heavily discouraged – not only discouraged, but actively weeded out. A mage who does violence on other mages is a mage that’s likely to get himself singled out as a maleficar. A mage who does violence on templars is a walking dead mage. A troublemaker like Anders, who escaped from the Tower seven times running, would likely not have survived to be recaptured six times running if he had harmed Templars on his way in or out.

Would this time have been different? Anders had no way of knowing that he was about to be conscripted, stopping his return to the Circle forever. Without that knowledge, would he have found it worth the risk to try violence on his captors, knowing that failure – or even, in the long run, success – would be a death sentence? Would he have decided that this was the point of no return, nerve himself up to do it, and be successful in his attempt, all in one go?

Personally, I doubt it. After a lifetime of conditioning against violence, I doubt Anders could have made the jump to mankiller that smoothly. Most humans require significant psychological conditioning to be able to kill other humans – that’s why militaries and police academies require extensive training. Anders can do it, but he needs help. For most of Awakening, the Warden provides that help – the Warden can point to a group of bandits and say “Fireball that” and he’ll do it. But that’s a far cry from being able to do it on his own.

Once the Warden left, Anders would be without that external motivation. But he’d have had a taste of what it’s like to be empowered in that way. He’d have had all of Awakening to watch the Hero of Ferelden murder their way to success, safety, wealth, accomplishment and glory. I have long thought that a good deal of Anders’ motivation for joining with Justice was that he felt that he lacked the conviction, courage, and ruthlessness to succeed – by which I mean, to kill – on his own. Anders is not a killer and he knows he’s not a killer; once left without the protection of the Warden and in danger of the Templars once again, he would feel the need to change that. Because at this point he knows he’s past the point of no return. He must defend himself to the death – theirs or his.

And I think that’s a large part of why he agreed to join with Justice. Because Justice is a killer. He kills without hesitation or doubt. And Anders wanted – needed – that for himself.

Confession:  I’ve got a lot of different Hawkes, but my favorite is a pro-mage Hawke who sides with the Templars in the end. Not because he agrees with the Templars, but because he thinks this is the best way to save Bethany. Siding with the mages seems like a suicide mission, but if he joins Meredith he has a better chance of keeping the other Templars from harming her. He throws away his beliefs, kills innocents, all for the only family he has left. I like to headcanon that not only does he hate himself, but Bethany also hates him for it. She didn’t ask him to slaughter a tower full of mages for her. So, in the end, he still loses everything: his morals, his family, his best friend Anders. Because I’m a glutton for punishment.

Confession: I wanted to side with the Templars, but was too attached to Anders to lose him, so I did my best to gain his full friendship. When he refused to fight by my side nonetheless, I told him to run, because I simply couldn’t kill someone I’ve spent seven years of my fictional life with! But I didn’t feel betrayed until I met him at the Gallows, where he showed no hesitance in attacking me. It ended up being so personal that I kept my party fighting the others and murdered him all by myself.

You know what I find really interesting? Despite the fact that Anders is literally possessed by a spirit of what he believes to be Vengeance the real personification of vengeance in DA2 is… well, Sebastian Vael. 

He is willing to wipe out the entire Flint Mercanary Company for the murder of his family, which I understand, to an extent. But really, how many of the men that Hawke kills for him in Act 1 do you think were actually complicit in the deaths? Also, they were just following orders.  No excuse, I know, but they were not the ones behind his parents deaths really. Then, at the end of Act 3 he is willing to invade the city state of Kirkwall and cause the death of who knows how many people because of the actions of two people, who aren’t even in Kirkwall when he invades. If that isn’t vengeance, I don’t know what is.

Confession: At the end of DA2, I always let Anders live for 2 reasons: He might’ve been wrong in destroying the chantry and killing hundreds of innocents, but his motives are just. The other reason is because Sebastian will go off to Starkhaven and reclaim his family’s throne and be driven to find revenge on Anders – giving him actual character development, a rival, and overall making him less boring. I’m also hoping that they might meet again and battle to death!

Drabble about protective Anders after the Arishok duel, minor injuries mentioned, nothing graphic though!


Anders was terrified. Most of Garrett’s friends may have gathered and lingered in the estate for the night, but that did little to lift the imagery from the Arishok’s duel from the healer’s mind. Anders had witnessed many cruel and horrific sights within his lifetime but he had never seen his love so broken before.

Garrett’s spirit didn’t seem to be an issue while he was conscious but the man, no the Champion now, had practically thrown his life away at the feet of the Arishok. There had been moments, flashes in those sharp eyes of acceptance of death and that still made Anders’ hands shake. Garrett survived, of course he did, he killed the Arishok and ended the fighting for Kirkwall.

Keep reading