paige i wanna ask you smthn.. do you think its right to excuse what ander did to the chantry?? i dont personally think it is but i see a lot of people all like “ITS JUSTICE THEY DESERVED IT!!” personally i love anders so much but its a terrorist act bc he killed not only templars / chantry members but possibly other mages, tranquil, and innocent citizens of kirkwall who were praying and such you know?? i think its messed up to excuse his actions even if he is your fave.. whats your opinion?

hipsterhanzo:

this is such a leading question and it’s been gone over so many times, but alright, i’ll give you my 2 cents

excuse is a weird word for it honestly

it implies those actions need to be excused or condemned, but as it stands my feelings are not so binary 

i am fairly neutral about it, over all, it was a desperate act in a desperate time, in a situation i wasn’t there to experience 

i would certainly rather he acted than let the situation progress into even worse territory (which it hardly could considering meredith called for the rite of annulment before anders did anything)

but terrorism is not the word for what anders did, terrorism is a modern word for our modern world

to quote tumblr user tiz85: 

“Terrorism is not a term applicable to a character who lives in ANOTHER WORLD which in our timeline is roughly 1500.

Spartacus was not a terrorist. Robespierre was not a terrorist. Calvin (he of the reformation) was not a terrorist.

Terrorist is a modern word that applies to modern situation in our own World.

Do not forget that. Having historical lens is important, or you will never understand the past. Or, for the matter, another World.”

also to quote myself previously:

before u call anders a terrorist consider this:

1. the andrasian chantry is a pseudo military/religious faction that has used terror tactics and mass genocide to gain political control over much of thedas
2. the andrasian chantry is about as much a happy, friendly, fun religion as catholicism in the dark ages, which leads to point 3…
3. the very definition of terrorism is skewed by governing bodies and stigmatised to disassociate their own acts of violence and the violence of people
4. though, if you insist: by this definition the chantry’s existence was founded on an act of terrorism
5. literally anything else

but to not exactly answer your question:

what anders did he did, i don’t think it was a good thing, i think it may have been a necessary thing, certainly an understandable thing —given his circumstances— and i think there is only so many times you can kick a dog before it bites you

and i’m not going to cover why i think anders’ is a redeemable character despite his flaws, bc actualhawke already did that over here and i am in agreement