57020 réponses à ce sujet

[cleosilver]

highcastle wrote...

I think the parrallels are there for a reason, though. I think they exist to make us ask, Are these tactics ever acceptable? If so, where do we draw the line? I was re-reading V for Vendetta in my 20th Century British Lit class recently, and it asks the same types of questions. You see characters with different motives and goals acting in similar ways, but some are deemed sympathetic and other heinous. Should they be? Is there a time where doing terrible things becomes, for lack of a better word, justified? I don't know. I think these are the types of questions that are uncomfortable to ask because we might not want to hear the answer.

It's like the saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."


Editted.

altairezio.deviantart.com/#/d3cq4w5

Modifié par cleosilver, 18 avril 2011 - 06:06 .

[ipgd]

Petrice doesn't have fabulous sparklefingers.

[Nilfalasiel]

Kolotosa wrote...

When you look at the banter in Awakening, you could argue Nathaniel has as hand in what happens to Justice and Anders as well. Nate plants the idea in Justice's head that it might be acceptable, and not demonic, to inhabit a willing, living host, for the good of a common goal.

Good point, yes. Problem there is that Nate isn't exactly a big authority on the matter. Has he ever met a demon or an abomination before that? But I can see how Justice, who's already starting to feel some envy for human things from his access to Kristoff's memories, might be tempted to accept that argument as valid, alas.

If I took one thing away from everything that happened in DA2 and the lead up to it, it's that a lot of smart people made a lot of really ****ing stupid decisions in the name of good intentions. >.<

Unfortunately, that's also very true.

[nyxocity]

YamiSnuffles wrote...

thenyxie wrote...

So... maybe I've lost too many hours of sleep playing this game, because last night during "Following the Qun" I was drawing major parallels between Mother Petrice's actions throughout as compared to Anders' in the end. I know the causes are different, but when I started trying to see how what she did was different, I really couldn't. Killing of some innocents? Check. Passionate about her beliefs? Check. Fighting for a cause? Check. Trying to push a war between two factions based on those beliefs by killing innocents? Check.

Have I really just lost that much sleep, or does that make some kind of crazy sense? Because I always hated her, but I could never bring myself to hate Anders. Which would make me a bit of a hypocrite, wouldn't it?

I think, for me, the difference lies in why they were doing what they were doing. Anders was fighting to free a people from opression. He wants the same rights and freedoms for mages that everyone else has. Petrice, on the other hand, is fighting to keep the Chantry in control. She is threatened by the fact that people are leaving the Chantry for the Qun.

So, they were both fighting for a cause, but the cause they are fighting for is what changes my opinion. Oh, that and Petrice seemed to revel in what she was doing and never seemed to regret a single innocent life lost. Anders, meanwhile, seemed really weighed by the choices he had to make.

That's my take on it, anyway. I'm not great at expressing my thoughts, so hopefully someone else offers a better explanation.

Oh, the difference in their causes is massive, as is the difference in their attitudes. And I'm never going to see mage oppression as equaling some people running off and leaving her faith. But I'm sure, from her perspective, she felt it was as necessary as Anders felt about blowing up the Chantry. But she was a *****, and as you say expressed no regret. I was fascinated by finding the parallels in their methods, though, as I'd never noticed before.

[upsettingshorts]

"Escort this Qunari it's totally for a good cause and I absolutely didn't plant evidence that you killed some Qunari"
=
"Let's collect this stuff it's for a potion that will help me split from Justice and totally isn't a bomb.  Also, wanna help me sneak into a civic building? "

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 06:04 .

[Sialater]

thenyxie wrote...

So... maybe I've lost too many hours of sleep playing this game, because last night during "Following the Qun" I was drawing major parallels between Mother Petrice's actions throughout as compared to Anders' in the end. I know the causes are different, but when I started trying to see how what she did was different, I really couldn't. Killing of some innocents? Check. Passionate about her beliefs? Check. Fighting for a cause? Check. Trying to push a war between two factions based on those beliefs by killing innocents? Check.

Have I really just lost that much sleep, or does that make some kind of crazy sense? Because I always hated her, but I could never bring myself to hate Anders. Which would make me a bit of a hypocrite, wouldn't it?

Petrice's actions are driven by her own racism and prejudice.

Anders' actions are driven by his oppression and prejudice against him and his group.  Now... if an elf or a qunari had done the same things, that would be an accurate parallel.

[nyxocity]

SurelyForth wrote...

thenyxie wrote...

So... maybe I've lost too many hours of sleep playing this game, because last night during "Following the Qun" I was drawing major parallels between Mother Petrice's actions throughout as compared to Anders' in the end. I know the causes are different, but when I started trying to see how what she did was different, I really couldn't. Killing of some innocents? Check. Passionate about her beliefs? Check. Fighting for a cause? Check. Trying to push a war between two factions based on those beliefs by killing innocents? Check.

Have I really just lost that much sleep, or does that make some kind of crazy sense? Because I always hated her, but I could never bring myself to hate Anders. Which would make me a bit of a hypocrite, wouldn't it?

It makes sense.

Where Petrice is different to me is how she sacrificing others, "lessers", left and right while remaining completely unwlling to accept any real blame or responsibility. Anders isn't framing Hawke (or anyone else) the way Petrice does and he ensures that everyone knows who is at fault by being present when the bomb goes off, and taking the full blame on himself.

Plus, he's not nearly as sneery. That has to count for something.

(also, I love Petrice in my own way...if only because Hawke is so clearly exasperated by her)

Agreed. They made her the kind of character you love to hate. I was just amazed by the parallels in their methods, and how they worked those in without me noticing the first couple times.

That screencap is gold. Is that actually in the game? I don't remember her ever walking through the middle of my party.

Modifié par thenyxie, 18 avril 2011 - 06:06 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sialater wrote...

Petrice's actions are driven by her own racism and prejudice.

Anders' actions are driven by his oppression and prejudice against him and his group.  Now... if an elf or a qunari had done the same things, that would be an accurate parallel.

Should we just consider my usual "in a discussion about how similar tactics are, the differences between the ultimate motivation behind the actions are not relevant" spiel as read?

[JesterPsychotica]

http://www.kurtcobai...pina_Bifida.jpg

Does Anders remind anyone else of Kurt?

[nyxocity]

highcastle wrote...

I think the parrallels are there for a reason, though. I think they exist to make us ask, Are these tactics ever acceptable? If so, where do we draw the line? I was re-reading V for Vendetta in my 20th Century British Lit class recently, and it asks the same types of questions. You see characters with different motives and goals acting in similar ways, but some are deemed sympathetic and other heinous. Should they be? Is there a time where doing terrible things becomes, for lack of a better word, justified? I don't know. I think these are the types of questions that are uncomfortable to ask because we might not want to hear the answer.

This is what I was driving at about being a bit of a hypocrite, without being able to articulate it.  Thank you for summing that up so wonderfully. The methods are the same, but the causes are different. I don't agree with Petrice's cause, therefore her methods digust me. I do agree with Anders' cause, therefore his use of the same methods does not. 

[nekhbet]

Dunno. There's similarities between Petrice and Anders. But Petrice is an agent of the powers that be, and Anders is the scrappy underdog. They start from very different positions.

My own heart, no matter how I play the RPG, will always go for the underdog, at least until s/he becomes a tool of oppression. Which is usually at the point s/he reaches enough power to oppress anyone. But not always, rebels don't always forget where they came from and what they were fighting for in the first place.

Modifié par nekhbet, 18 avril 2011 - 06:13 .

[upsettingshorts]

nekhbet wrote...

My own heart, no matter how I play the RPG, will always go for the underdog

I'm pretty sure thats the primary reason DA2 throws blood mages and abominations at the player constantly.

[nyxocity]

thenyxie wrote...

highcastle wrote...

I think the parrallels are there for a reason, though. I think they exist to make us ask, Are these tactics ever acceptable? If so, where do we draw the line? I was re-reading V for Vendetta in my 20th Century British Lit class recently, and it asks the same types of questions. You see characters with different motives and goals acting in similar ways, but some are deemed sympathetic and other heinous. Should they be? Is there a time where doing terrible things becomes, for lack of a better word, justified? I don't know. I think these are the types of questions that are uncomfortable to ask because we might not want to hear the answer.

This is what I was driving at about being a bit of a hypocrite, without being able to articulate it.  Thank you for summing that up so wonderfully. The methods are the same, but the causes are different. I don't agree with Petrice's cause, therefore her methods digust me. I do agree with Anders' cause, therefore his use of the same methods does not. I mean, they don't exactly make me HAPPY, per se, but I can understand why he felt the way that he does.

[Sialater]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sialater wrote...

Petrice's actions are driven by her own racism and prejudice.

Anders' actions are driven by his oppression and prejudice against him and his group.  Now... if an elf or a qunari had done the same things, that would be an accurate parallel.

Should we just consider my usual "in a discussion about how similar tactics are, the differences between the ultimate motivation behind the actions are not relevant" spiel as read?

Sure.  And you can take my disagreement as given.

[nyxocity]

Um. Format fail, I think?

Nothing to see here, move along.

[Poetics124]

thenyxie wrote...

highcastle wrote...

I think the parrallels are there for a reason, though. I think they exist to make us ask, Are these tactics ever acceptable? If so, where do we draw the line? I was re-reading V for Vendetta in my 20th Century British Lit class recently, and it asks the same types of questions. You see characters with different motives and goals acting in similar ways, but some are deemed sympathetic and other heinous. Should they be? Is there a time where doing terrible things becomes, for lack of a better word, justified? I don't know. I think these are the types of questions that are uncomfortable to ask because we might not want to hear the answer.

This is what I was driving at about being a bit of a hypocrite, without being able to articulate it.  Thank you for summing that up so wonderfully. The methods are the same, but the causes are different. I don't agree with Petrice's cause, therefore her methods digust me. I do agree with Anders' cause, therefore his use of the same methods does not. 

Pretty much.  It's a lot like the American Revolution.   To other American colonist, what the founding fathers did is amazing and they are freedom fighters.  If you were loyalist though?  Not really appreciating getting their house burned down or being tarred and feathered in a public square.    Two different view points and two different perspectives.

It actually really does remind me of Ozymandias actions in The Watchmen.  Yes, he saved the world from nuclear oblivion, but he killed a crap load of people to do it. 

Modifié par Poetics124, 18 avril 2011 - 06:19 .

[nyxocity]

*gives up* Every time I try to edit it makes a new post. Sorry, guys.

[JesterPsychotica]

It is our right.

Modifié par JesterPsychotica, 18 avril 2011 - 06:21 .

[LastFadingSmile]

JesterPsychotica wrote...

http://www.kurtcobai...pina_Bifida.jpg

Does Anders remind anyone else of Kurt?

Yes except for a guy who lives in a sewer, Anders still looks cleaner.

[nekhbet]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

nekhbet wrote...

My own heart, no matter how I play the RPG, will always go for the underdog

I'm pretty sure thats the primary reason DA2 throws blood mages and abominations at the player constantly.

Won't work on those of us of Jewish heritage flaunting our keffiyehs.

[upsettingshorts]

nekhbet wrote...

Won't work on those of us of Jewish heritage flaunting our keffiyehs.

Heh, well what I mean is the game presents us with so many examples of extremes - from rapey Templars to the worst kinds of Blood Mages - to attempt to force us out of our real world complacency and accept the fictional world as presented as one with incredibly dangerous mages that need to be contained and oppressive and violent Templars that need to be reigned in.  

The goal - again, I think - is to demand the player judge the conflict of the game on its own terms, and not the ones we bring with us.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 06:24 .

[JesterPsychotica]

Kolotosa wrote...

JesterPsychotica wrote...

http://www.kurtcobai...pina_Bifida.jpg

Does Anders remind anyone else of Kurt?

Yes except for a guy who lives in a sewer, Anders still looks cleaner.

I am so glad he didn't have Bethany or Isabela hands. Ew.

[nyxocity]

Poetics124 wrote...

thenyxie wrote...

highcastle wrote...

I think the parrallels are there for a reason, though. I think they exist to make us ask, Are these tactics ever acceptable? If so, where do we draw the line? I was re-reading V for Vendetta in my 20th Century British Lit class recently, and it asks the same types of questions. You see characters with different motives and goals acting in similar ways, but some are deemed sympathetic and other heinous. Should they be? Is there a time where doing terrible things becomes, for lack of a better word, justified? I don't know. I think these are the types of questions that are uncomfortable to ask because we might not want to hear the answer.

This is what I was driving at about being a bit of a hypocrite, without being able to articulate it.  Thank you for summing that up so wonderfully. The methods are the same, but the causes are different. I don't agree with Petrice's cause, therefore her methods digust me. I do agree with Anders' cause, therefore his use of the same methods does not. 

Pretty much.  It's a lot like the American Revolution.   To other American colonist, what the founding fathers did is amazing and they are freedom fighters.  If you were loyalist though?  Not really appreciating getting their house burned down or being tarred and feathered in a public square.  Two different view points and two different perspectives.

It actually really does remind me of Ozymandias actions in The Watchmen.  Yes, he saved the world from nuclear oblivion, but he killed a crap load of people to do it. 

It's always perspective in the end.

I loved that about Watchmen. It made the reader/watcher question so much. You'd think the death of 5 million people would ALWAYS be the wrong choice, but when it's that or everyone in the entire world, well...

Of course, Anders and Petrice weren't saving the world, which makes things far more questionable with them. Which is the point, I think.

[Poetics124]

thenyxie wrote...

Poetics124 wrote...

thenyxie wrote...

highcastle wrote...

I think the parrallels are there for a reason, though. I think they exist to make us ask, Are these tactics ever acceptable? If so, where do we draw the line? I was re-reading V for Vendetta in my 20th Century British Lit class recently, and it asks the same types of questions. You see characters with different motives and goals acting in similar ways, but some are deemed sympathetic and other heinous. Should they be? Is there a time where doing terrible things becomes, for lack of a better word, justified? I don't know. I think these are the types of questions that are uncomfortable to ask because we might not want to hear the answer.

This is what I was driving at about being a bit of a hypocrite, without being able to articulate it.  Thank you for summing that up so wonderfully. The methods are the same, but the causes are different. I don't agree with Petrice's cause, therefore her methods digust me. I do agree with Anders' cause, therefore his use of the same methods does not. 

Pretty much.  It's a lot like the American Revolution.   To other American colonist, what the founding fathers did is amazing and they are freedom fighters.  If you were loyalist though?  Not really appreciating getting their house burned down or being tarred and feathered in a public square.  Two different view points and two different perspectives.

It actually really does remind me of Ozymandias actions in The Watchmen.  Yes, he saved the world from nuclear oblivion, but he killed a crap load of people to do it. 

It's always perspective in the end.

I loved that about Watchmen. It made the reader/watcher question so much. You'd think the death of 5 million people would ALWAYS be the wrong choice, but when it's that or everyone in the entire world, well...

Of course, Anders and Petrice weren't saving the world, which makes things far more questionable with them. Which is the point, I think.

I think it just shows how the world of ideals actually play out in the real world.   Elthina wants to trust the maker (and she reminds me so much of the man on the roof during a flood story it's crazy) but in the end that trust gets her cablooey.  Petrice wants to drive out a false religion and will do it by any means necessary and gets herself, the viscount, and countless other people murdered.  The Arishok wants to live his life by the Qun and can do it no other way which leads him to his doom.  And Anders blows up a church because he believes being dead is better than being subject to Chantry law (whether he dies to is up to the player).

As Isabella said, ideals are great when they aren't in the real world.

[nekhbet]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Heh, well what I mean is the game presents us with so many examples of extremes - from rapey Templars to the worst kinds of Blood Mages - to attempt to force us out of our real world complacency and accept the fictional world as presented as one with incredibly dangerous mages that need to be contained and oppressive and violent Templars that need to be reigned in.  

The goal - again, I think - is to demand the player judge the conflict of the game on its own terms, and not the ones we bring with us.

Honestly, I think if DA2 failed spectacularly at something it's keeping it strictly fictious. We wouldn't be having these forum wars mages vs. templars if it didn't hit people a touch too close. It'd be like KOTOR where it's cool to join the Dark Side even if it's morally abhorrent to them. Right now what you see is the spectrum of "good" and "evil" on both sides, just like in real conflicts. The presence of grey overwhelmes the extremes and makes people think about it enough to take it personally, which is funny because it's exactly the opposite in the real world where people only see black and white. Well, a lot of people do anyway.

Now you got people refusing to play out certain outcomes because they, the players, find them morally abhorrent.

It's either a brilliant accomplishment or a failure from the writers, depending what they aimed for.