You thought Mage vs. Templar was complicated? JUST YOU WAIT FOR...

Yes. The pacifists shake their head disapprovingly, while the freedom fighters win the battle (or lose), and take the responsibility – for the others, for those pacifists, who absolutely disdain them, but enjoy the freedom, what they got without risks, without any blood on their hand... or it is? This is a big fat hypocrisy. There's not always a peaceful solution. This is a cruel world.

And who is the hero, and who is the war criminal? This is the "grey zone", not the Circle system and the slavery and the institutionalized brainwashing.

While the mages are certainly free to rail against those who they perceive did them wrong, so are other members of the citizenry. If the mages band together en masse to drag innocent civilians into the battle, then aren't the citizenry also free to rail against those who shed violence against them? Are the mages then not murderers, or deviants, in the eyes of others? One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, perspective is a powerful thing. Anders could have targetted the templars with his explosion, but instead he went for a soft target and so I have no respect for him And so the circle of violence goes on, and whoever is right is whoever wins and writes the story.

My main gripe was the inability to stab Anders early on in the game. It's not that the theme isn't a valid one, it is, with powerful connections back to the real world. Unfortunately I've always played Bioware for light escapist fantasy romps, and Anders deserves a cruel and harsh death for turning the franchise in a more ... heavy direction. Boo!

So you think killing innocent civilians is okay, then? Just trying to make sure I understand your post. 

How is negotiating with the Chantry an option? All they care about is whether mages are under control, not their happiness.

This is a civil war. The Mages in the Circle aren't an army. And Anders didn't attack civil target. Anders attacked the Chantry, what caused the war.

And his attack killed innocent civilians, both directly and indirectly. Do you support tactics that do that? 

Death is the coward's way out. It's a way of saying he didn't want to deal with the fallout of his actions.

Elthina may have been the figurehead in Kirkwall but she wasn't where the real power lay. The real power lay in Meredith, and she kept Orsino in check. Elthina was nothing, really.

Got it. So you support murdering innocent civilians. I'm glad to finally have clarity on that. 

Anders didn't want to die, he wanted to start a rebellion. He prepared to die because he knew/expected, he will die. (Okay, in the rivalry, he wants to die... but in the rivalry, he already lost himself, the rivalry doesn't matter.)
So: why he didn't attack the Templars if the death no matter to him? He easily would able to kill many Templars alone, AND die as a hero. But that wouldn't effective.

Elthina was Meredith's superior. She was coward if did nothing. But he was no coward. She was totally idiot or malevolent, I vote for the latter. She has every power to stop Meredith: she has years to do it. When Hawke arrived in Kirkwall, Meredith already was a dangerous criminal and the real ruler of the city. Elthina (and the Knight Captain...) was the only who was able to kick her. And if she feels, she will fail, then she would able to ask for help from the Divine (Seekers).

(Why people think, Orsino is someone who counts? I will never understand. He doesn't play in this game, sadly.)

After that Kirkwall happened.