6837 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Well, here's how I see it. These are the two possible interpretations I feel come from the final rivalry scene:

#1. "I want to be a better person, because I like how being a good person makes me feel. Thank you for showing me that."
#2. "I want to be a better person, because you're a good person and I like you."

I prefer #1, because it's a choice she makes about herself and Hawke is the catalyst, whereas #2 is a choice she makes because Hawke is the reason. It's a bit of a semantic difference, but it's an important one to me. I just think that #1 shows more growth of character.

I see it as the opposite.

For Isabela, doing something for another person is character growth. Not spontaneous being nice, but a sort of commitment to behavior that she's not really comfortable with.

Doing something because it makes her feel good is already her default.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:29 .

[mesmerizedish]

I agree with Maria :/

[hoorayforicecream]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I see it as the opposite.

For Isabela, doing something for another person is character growth. Not spontaneous being nice, but a sort of commitment to behavior that she's not really comfortable with.

Doing something because it makes her feel good is already her default.

I think that she's not really comfortable with being a better person either way, which is one thing that makes it endearing to me. It's just that I'd like to think she'd continue to try to do so because she feels it's the right thing to do, and not just something that Hawke would want her to do. I see the growth as "she makes better choices because her world view is better now". Does that make sense?

[mesmerizedish]

I think that the reason she'd not do something she would have earlier is going to be "Hawke would be disappointed in me" instead of "Well, this is a bad idea."

[hoorayforicecream]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I think that the reason she'd not do something she would have earlier is going to be "Hawke would be disappointed in me" instead of "Well, this is a bad idea."

Why? Isn't the very definition of character growth now understanding that something is a bad idea when one once thought it was a good idea?

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:50 .

[mesmerizedish]

But most of the things she otherwise would have done really aren't THAT bad. They're just stuff that... well, that a "respectable" person would frown on. So, if Hawke is respectable, then she's frowning. And Isabela doesn't like it when Hawke frowns.

[hoorayforicecream]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

But most of the things she otherwise would have done really aren't THAT bad. They're just stuff that... well, that a "respectable" person would frown on. So, if Hawke is respectable, then she's frowning. And Isabela doesn't like it when Hawke frowns.

Oh I can understand that. I just don't think it shows as much growth, because it ends up being like a child behaving because she's told to behave. To me, there's little difference between eating your vegetables because it would cause a frown, and feeding the vegetables to the dog and covering it up so as not to cause a frown. The conclusion I draw is that what the child cares about is the frown, whereas the adult cares about the reason behind the frown.

Edit: There's certainly growth in both cases though - the child goes from not caring about the frown at all, to realizing that the frown means something and doing things to not cause it. However, I feel that the child realizing what the frown is about and caring about that is the most growth of all.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:05 .

[Maria Caliban]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I think that she's not really comfortable with being a better person either way, which is one thing that makes it endearing to me. It's just that I'd like to think she'd continue to try to do so because she feels it's the right thing to do, and not just something that Hawke would want her to do. I see the growth as "she makes better choices because her world view is better now". Does that make sense?

I don't think her worldview shifts.

Let's not conflate 'what Isabela wants' with 'what Isabela feels is right.' From the very start, she knows right from wrong. The first thing we learn about her is that she's freed slaves. She found a group of kidnapped men, women, and children. She understood their suffering. She freed them because she knew it was wrong for them to be enslaved.

Yet, at the end of the game, she's willing to let Castillian go so she can get A BOAT.

That's morally reprehensible. That's like me not telling the police about a murder because the killer offered me a 2010 Lincoln Towncar.

Isabela ignores what she knows is the right thing to do because she really, really wants something.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Why? Isn't the very definition of character growth now understanding that something is a bad idea when one once thought it was a good idea?

She always knew it was a bad idea. She just didn't bother herself with it because she's kind of selfish.

[mesmerizedish]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

But most of the things she otherwise would have done really aren't THAT bad. They're just stuff that... well, that a "respectable" person would frown on. So, if Hawke is respectable, then she's frowning. And Isabela doesn't like it when Hawke frowns.

Oh I can understand that. I just don't think it shows as much growth, because it ends up being like a child behaving because she's told to behave. To me, there's little difference between eating your vegetables because it would cause a frown, and feeding the vegetables to the dog and covering it up so as not to cause a frown. The conclusion I draw is that what the child cares about is the frown, whereas the adult cares about the reason behind the frown.

Edit: There's certainly growth in both cases though - the child goes from not caring about the frown at all, to realizing that the frown means something and doing things to not cause it. However, I feel that the child realizing what the frown is about and caring about that is the most growth of all.

I think the growth we see in Isabela is really her going from not caring to caring. She understands why the frown is there, she just doesn't care.

She tried to make her deal with Castillon whether you're friending or rivalling her, right? She's still trying to shunt the veggies off to the dog. She steps back when she realizes that Hawke really, really doesn't want her to let a slaver go free.

Off-topic: does Fenris get rivalry points if you let Isabela go through with it? Because he totally should.

[jlb524]

Aveline gives rivalry for killing Castillon....I don't understand that really.

[whykikyouwhy]

According to the wiki, Fenris does as well.

I suspect Aveline gives rivalry points because she would rather arrest him than have him killed. Her justice versus Hawke's.

[hoorayforicecream]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I don't think her worldview shifts.

Let's not conflate 'what Isabela wants' with 'what Isabela feels is right.' From the very start, she knows right from wrong. The first thing we learn about her is that she's freed slaves. She found a group of kidnapped men, women, and children. She understood their suffering. She freed them because she knew it was wrong for them to be enslaved.

Yet, at the end of the game, she's willing to let Castillian go so she can get A BOAT.

Ship.

That's morally reprehensible. That's like me not telling the police about a murder because the killer offered me a 2010 Lincoln Towncar.

Isabela ignores what she knows is the right thing to do because she really, really wants something.

This is what I think the rivalry indicated (or tried to indicate) to me... I think that her world view could shift. If Castillon is killed, she talks about how it felt good to do the right thing, and how she's proud of what they did. If Castillion lives, she says she regrets letting him go. She's different than the more selfish Isabela she used to be. Maybe not a LOT different, but different. I think that at the end of the rivalry path, she's closer to wanting to do what is right than she used to be. It's not a night-and-day transformation, but I think that she's changing some, and I like that.

But this is also why I didn't like the presentation as much - it isn't clear whether she feels this way because she genuinely feels this way, or because she simply wants to feel this way because of Hawke, and I wish they had made that distinction.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Why? Isn't the very definition of character growth now understanding that something is a bad idea when one once thought it was a good idea?

She always knew it was a bad idea. She just didn't bother herself with it because she's kind of selfish.

And if she's not as selfish at the end, doesn't that indicate personal growth? Her values change, and she's a better person because of it.

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

She tried to make her deal with Castillon whether you're friending or rivalling her, right? She's still trying to shunt the veggies off to the dog. She steps back when she realizes that Hawke really, really doesn't want her to let a slaver go free.

She's shunting the veggies to the doggie, but afterwards feels remorseful about it. That's growth, though how much is up to the interpretation. If she feels remorseful for herself, then I feel it is more growth than feeling remorseful because her loved one is disappointed in her.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:23 .

[mesmerizedish]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

According to the wiki, Fenris does as well.

I suspect Aveline gives rivalry points because she would rather arrest him than have him killed. Her justice versus Hawke's.

And yet she totally approves of the extrajudiciary execution of Keller?

[whykikyouwhy]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

According to the wiki, Fenris does as well.

I suspect Aveline gives rivalry points because she would rather arrest him than have him killed. Her justice versus Hawke's.

And yet she totally approves of the extrajudiciary execution of Keller?

Doesn't that depend on what Hawke promises the Magistrate and/or what Hawke tells the guards outside? I think her main issues are whether or not Hawke lies and whether or not Fenris kills him.

So too, it could be that rape (or alleged rape) is higher on her list of crimes than the slave trade. Not saying that the leveling system is correct, but it may be what she subscribes to.

[Blansten]

Time to bring the IQ level of the thread down a bit with a few questions that may not be so bright.

 Was it ever established that Castillon had more that the one ship? Perhaps Isabela's idea was to ground him and therefore curtail his activities. Doesn't she allude to the likelihood that someone else will catch up to him and kill him it doesn't have to be her.



 Keller admits to being unable to stops and asks to be killed, perhaps under those circumstances Aveline doesn't see the need for a formal trial.

[mesmerizedish]

Blansten wrote...

its to being unable to stops and asks to be killed, perhaps under those circumstances Aveline doesn't see the need for a formal trial.

Because Castillon seems oh so repentent? Sorry, I don't buy it. Either she values law as an institution or she doesn't. She's willing to see Keller murdered instead of face trial, when she's all set to be guard captain? Surely she can pull strings harder than the magistrate. But not Castillon. When the options are kill him or let him go, she'd rather see him walk? This reeks of a mistake.

[jlb524]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

According to the wiki, Fenris does as well.

I suspect Aveline gives rivalry points because she would rather arrest him than have him killed. Her justice versus Hawke's.

And yet she totally approves of the extrajudiciary execution of Keller?

Yah...that's what I don't get....

Blansten wrote...

Time to bring the IQ level of the thread down a bit with a few questions that may not be so bright.

Was it ever established that Castillon had more that the one ship? Perhaps Isabela's idea was to ground him and therefore curtail his activities.
Doesn't she allude to the likelihood that someone else will catch up to
him and kill him it doesn't have to be her.

Keller admits to being unable to stops and asks to be killed, perhaps under those circumstances Aveline doesn't see the need for a formal trial.

But they found documents proving that Castillon was planning more slavery. And he's a powerful man...it seems he had a whole operation going and I doubt he'd give up the one ship so easily if he didn't have others.

Modifié par jlb524, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:08 .

[jlb524]

The only thing I can think of is that Aveline knew the law failed with Kelder and that it would protect him (via the Magistrate)...so in that case she supports undermining it.

With Castillon, the law wouldn't support him at all and if he was brought to justice he would feel it....there would be no corruption to protect him.  The law would 'work' properly as it should.

Modifié par jlb524, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:14 .

[whykikyouwhy]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Blansten wrote...

its to being unable to stops and asks to be killed, perhaps under those circumstances Aveline doesn't see the need for a formal trial.

Because Castillon seems oh so repentent? Sorry, I don't buy it. Either she values law as an institution or she doesn't. She's willing to see Keller murdered instead of face trial, when she's all set to be guard captain? Surely she can pull strings harder than the magistrate. But not Castillon. When the options are kill him or let him go, she'd rather see him walk? This reeks of a mistake.

But Keldar is a mage. And Aveline is uneasy around mages, especially ones that have a bit of a metallic aroma about them. So perhaps her own prejudices were overriding her natural inclination toward law.

I can't explain the Castillon thing. If Hawke is romancing Isabela, it may make sense. Aveline may be, begrudgingly, willing to look the other way for Hawke's sake. So too, Aveline and Isabela are friendly at that point - they have an understanding, they are more inclined to accept each other. Another reason why Aveline may abide by the decision. (Again, begrudgingly...at least in my mind.)

Of course, by Act 3, most of the friendship/rivalry points are established, so that could just be a little problematic factor in the mix and thus undermine any actual character continuity.

[mesmerizedish]

Keller isn't a mage.

[jlb524]

No, he wasn't a mage. They Circle only investigated his 'demon' possession at the Magistrate's behest and found nothing. I think if he was a mage, the Circle would have locked him up, regardless of him being a Magistrate's son.

[whykikyouwhy]

I stand corrected. He does talk of demons, however. Which may be enough to stir up the prejudice. Demons = blood magic, etc and so forth (at least, perhaps, to Aveline).

[mesmerizedish]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I stand corrected. He does talk of demons, however. Which may be enough to stir up the prejudice. Demons = blood magic, etc and so forth (at least, perhaps, to Aveline).

Well, the deal was that it wasn't demons. He was just violently schizophrenic. In modern society, he'd be put in a hospital.

[jlb524]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I stand corrected. He does talk of demons, however. Which may be enough to stir up the prejudice. Demons = blood magic, etc and so forth (at least, perhaps, to Aveline).

She knew it had nothing to do with magic/demons and was an excuse given from a troubled mind.  Not one of the companions, especially Isabela, bought that.

I think my above explanation might be the best. 

Edit:  ninja'd by ish.

Modifié par jlb524, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:30 .

[whykikyouwhy]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I stand corrected. He does talk of demons, however. Which may be enough to stir up the prejudice. Demons = blood magic, etc and so forth (at least, perhaps, to Aveline).

Well, the deal was that it wasn't demons. He was just violently schizophrenic. In modern society, he'd be put in a hospital.

But even in modern society, there are prejudices against mental illness.

I don't recall evidence of the existence of mental illness in Kirkwall, or the acknowledgement of it. I figured the citizens regarded such things much in the way they did in our own history, and even in biblical-type accounts - an illness or condition was likened to demons, demonic possession, spirits, etc. Therefore something evil and vile. Therefore something that must be cured, if possible, or outright destroyed.

So, if that is the case, and there are no such hospitals to treat what would should be considered an illness, isn't it feasible for Aveline, or anyone, to make that correlation to demonic possession?