57020 réponses à ce sujet

[highcastle]

And the world didn't end today (yet) either, so really, I think the fate of the human race is looking up.

Edit: Stupid top. It's always my silly posts with no context that make it up here. Oh well: here's Anders smirking to make everyone feel better:

Modifié par highcastle, 22 mai 2011 - 12:45 .

[Amondra]

dpMeggers wrote...

Can I just say, once again, how fantastic this thread is? We can have a debate without it devolving into flame wars. We're civil to each other. We can discuss things on the internet without the shield of anonymity making everyone into jerkfaces. We can accept that other people can have different opinions.

So thank you, Anders thread, for allowing me to believe that humanity isn't 100% doomed.

LOL seems that way doesn't it.  However I jooke with my friends that all the mature players are on the Anders thread.  Normally I get shameboner in my face...eh small details

[ipgd]

Ryzaki wrote...

By that logic telling someone who does drugs and you love them all the time is essentially saying their wrong because you want them to stop. I disagree about defining. He choose to let it define him. It didn't have too. He was weak and decided to rely on a supernatural being to accomplish his dreams instead of standing on his own. Similar to me to people I know who rely on drugs for happiness because they don't think they can manage it on their own. 

By that logic someone who is in a relationship with someone who cuts themselvesand tells them that they shouldn't do that. That its wrong. Is saying the person as a whole is wrong. Which...isn't the case. The action itself doesn't condemn the person automaticaly. Justice and Anders are not the same being to me. Never will be. 

The difference is that those are things people can change. Anders cannot stop being an abomination. It's more like, say, dating someone with HIV and constantly making them feel awful and giving them **** for having had unprotected sex. I mean, sure, you could make it your life's mission to make sure they know unprotected sex is the worst thing ever and they regret that decision, but at the end of the day nothing you say will change it. Why would you be with a person if you are so strongly opposed to some immutable aspect of them?

[LT123]

RE Fable 3: Didn't somebody on here find a character voiced by Adam Howden and marry him?

I'll have to wait for the 1.03 patch before I try to say anything intelligent about friendship vs. rivalry, but I enjoy reading the discussion.

[Ryzaki]

ipgd wrote...
The difference is that those are things people can change. Anders cannot stop being an abomination. It's more like, say, dating someone with HIV and constantly making them feel awful and giving them **** for having had unprotected sex. I mean, sure, you could make it your life's mission to make sure they know unprotected sex is the worst thing ever and they regret that decision, but at the end of the day nothing you say will change it. Why would you be with a person if you are so strongly opposed to some immutable aspect of them?

We don't know if Anders can't stop being an abomination. Not enough information to tell. Sia brought up something interesting about Rivian witches summoning spirits? or demons? and letting them use their bodies. Yet there is no mention of a mass outbreak of abominations. It is possible they have a way to either completely control it or undo it at will. 

We do know he can choose not to listen to Justice. And indeed can resist him for a time. (Stopping him from killing Ella, joining Hawke to side with the templars) So it's not like giving someone lip about HIV because the HIV doesn't talk to them and encourage them to do things that they can choose to say "no" to.
So again I'm not seeing it as a immutable aspect of him. 

It's inside of him but he can choose to follow it willingly. THe fact that he can say no (hijack nowithstanding) is what solidifes it as non-immutable in my mind. 

That said let's agree to disagree. I don't see either of us changing each others mind. 

Edit: And it sounds like I'm trying to get the final word in but I'm not. I just want tomake my postion clear is all. Sorry if it sounds like I'm being all 'STOP TALKING NOW THAT I'VE HAD MY SAY." that's not the intention. 

@highcastle: Highcastle we don't have enough information to know if its possible to undo a possession or not.

That said I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote. . 

The phrases "Justice disagrees with my obsession with you." to me means on some level they communicate of each other and are aware of each others minds. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 mai 2011 - 01:07 .

[YamiSnuffles]

I gave up on trying to talk about friendship vs rivalry about a thousand pages ago or more. It all comes down to personal preference and I get too worked up when I argue opinions. I still enjoy reading people debate about it, though. After all, our ceaseless cycle of debating it is how we learned interesting things like the whole bipolar aspect.

[highcastle]

Ryzaki wrote...

ipgd wrote...
The difference is that those are things people can change. Anders cannot stop being an abomination. It's more like, say, dating someone with HIV and constantly making them feel awful and giving them **** for having had unprotected sex. I mean, sure, you could make it your life's mission to make sure they know unprotected sex is the worst thing ever and they regret that decision, but at the end of the day nothing you say will change it. Why would you be with a person if you are so strongly opposed to some immutable aspect of them?

We don't know if Anders can't stop being an abomination. 

We do know he can choose not to listen to Justice. And indeed can resist him for a time. (Stopping him from killing Ella, joining Hawke to side with the templars)

So again I'm not seeing it as a immutable aspect of him. 

It's inside of him but he can choose to follow it willingly. 

So it's not like giving someone lip about HIV because the HIV doesn't talk to them and encourage them to do things that they can choose to say "no" too. 

Anders can't stop being an abomination. We've never seen someone who was bodily possessed suddenly become unpossessed. Even if we're going to assume it's possible, you're essentially giving him a lobotomy. Is that any better, really? 

Once more, the crux of this issue rests in how closely intertwined you believe he and Justice are. If we listen to Anders own words, he says he feels Justice's thoughts as his own. He can't separate them. So you'd essentially be telling him to trust his own thoughts, that anything he thinks could be suspect. The only times Anders can really resist is when Justice pulls a Harbinger. But he's still around even when Anders is mostly normal. So what exactly is he resisting in those moments? Himself?

And this is what breaks him ultimately, I believe. In telling him he doesn't have to listen to Justice but not being able to figure out which thoughts are his and which are Justice's, you're essentially paralyzing him. And I like ipgd's metaphor of HIV. Justice is to some degree a parasite or a disease (sorry Justice, I quite like you, but this is the only comparision that seems to stick at present). He doesn't so much "talk" to Anders as he affects Anders' line of thinking. So there's no arguing here. There's no saying "no" to something. There's only learning to live with it. And it's the friendship path that seems to give Anders the tools to stay in control and manage his condition.

Again, in my opinion of course. And I'm not trying to attack anyone. I find this debate interesting and I like getting other perspectives.

[Giggles_Manically]

A good comparison for Anders:

Justice is the now same as a Gou'ald.
It is not just a voice talking to him, its a literal being that is inside him, and can take over.

Although Justice is more a spiritual then a physical entity.

However Anders cant just ignore Justice anymore since the thing is in his head all the time now.

[ipgd]

Ryzaki wrote...

We don't know if Anders can't stop being an abomination. Not enough information to tell. Sia brought up something interesting about Rivian witches summoning spirits? or demons? and letting them use their bodies. Yet there is no mention of a mass outbreak of abominations. It is possible they have a way to either completely control it or undo it at will. 

We do know he can choose not to listen to Justice. And indeed can resist him for a time. (Stopping him from killing Ella, joining Hawke to side with the templars) So it's not like giving someone lip about HIV because the HIV doesn't talk to them and encourage them to do things that they can choose to say "no" to.
So again I'm not seeing it as a immutable aspect of him. 

It's inside of him but he can choose to follow it willingly. THe fact that he can say no (hijack nowithstanding) is what solidifes it as non-immutable in my mind. 

That said let's agree to disagree. I don't see either of us changing each others mind. 

Edit: And it sounds like I'm trying to get the final word in but I'm not. I just want tomake my postion clear is all. Sorry if it sounds like I'm being all 'STOP TALKING NOW THAT I'VE HAD MY SAY." that's not the intention. 

You could also be an AIDS denialist and encourage him to stop taking his meds and then be surprised when he does and dies, I guess?

I'm sure you can have noble intentions with it and all, but the fact of the matter basically is that Anders and Justice are inseparable, and Justice is stronger than Anders. The rivalry path encourages Anders to fight back, but it's not a battle he can win. Even if there were a way to split them, by the end of the game he's too far gone for it to matter -- he's either completely entwined with Justice or suicidal/probably about to be near-immediately destroyed by Justice when he inevitably takes back control.

You can argue that it's better he die with his individuality than his sanity, but he can't be saved.

[Ryzaki]

...really ipgd? An aids denier?

I'm gonna step out now before I say something I'll regret.

Far too dramatic. I'm just going to leave this arguement alone. We're not going to see eye to eye.  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 mai 2011 - 01:20 .

[Elriendel]

nekhbet wrote...

Oh my gods does someone know when does this scene trigger? Dump Anders and go for Isabela and then what? Or can you somehow do Isabela without actually dumping Anders before? I just wonder... where does that ignorant comment from Anders come from, lol.

That is after romancing Fenris and breaking up (that's why he says "we're not together"), then going for Isabella (who helps "forget the loss"), in act 2. But the scene takes place in act 3, when you enter the sewers to complete Anders/Justice friend quest.

I didn't know he would creep outside the door

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...

I'm gonna step out now before I say something I'll regret.

You mean you don't regret most of your posts already? 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 01:16 .

[ipgd]

To touch on this:

The phrases "Justice disagrees with my obsession with you." to me means on some level they communicate of each other and are aware of each others minds.

I've written about this before and the way I basically see it is that Anders "anthropomorphizes" Justice, partly out of the simplicity of explanation and partly out of a desire to absolve himself of the blame for his actions. I think he mainly manifests as a sense of cognitive dissonance, and because Anders/Justice is informed enough to know which opinions probably originate from where, attributes them to their respective differing "aspects" of himself, but there's only one brain in there.

Modifié par ipgd, 22 mai 2011 - 01:22 .

[Ryzaki]

ipgd wrote...

To touch on this:

The phrases "Justice disagrees with my obsession with you." to me means on some level they communicate of each other and are aware of each others minds.

I've written about this before and the way I basically see it is that Anders "anthropomorphizes" Justice, partly out of the simplicity of explanation and partly out of a desire to absolve himself of the blame for his actions. I think he mainly manifests as a sense of cognitive dissonance, and because Anders/Justice is informed enough to know which opinions probably originate from where, attributes them to their respective differing "aspects" of himself, but there's only one brain in there.

And of course I disagree with that view which means we're going to come to different conclusions that don't match each other and are going to disagree on many things that build on our first view. 

I can't see Justice as not being a seperate being with ideas because that's exactly what he was in Awakening. He had his own thoughts and even desires. That doesn't go away to me just because he and Anders got forced into the same container. They're still there even though they ended up corrupted and twisted by the tramua of having Anders' memories and mind colliding with his. I see them as having a connection. Justice is the much stronger party as he has full access to Anders' mind and body, Anders on the other hand has only limited access to Justice's mind and abilities (he can't see anything Justice doesn't want him to see during the blackouts.) Of course with enough strength of will Anders can cut off the connection momentarily (maybe permantely? Not enough information to tell to me). Then is the fact that he physically changes Anders' body when he takes over. 

Then of course is the thing with spirits not needing brains (actual physical brains I mean) to have personalities and such. (Like the spirit of Valor in the Fade along with the demons). If he didn't need a brain then why would he need one in Anders' body? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 mai 2011 - 01:39 .

[upsettingshorts]

It's not really an "agree to disagree" situation when one position is simply incorrect.

"The sky is dark green."
"No it isn't."
"Agree to disagree."

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 01:38 .

[Ryzaki]

Offtopic: On the note of Fable 3.

Are there any good offline guides for fable 3?  

I'm trying to kill those little bastard gnomes and I can't find them. 

I only got about 10 of them. :/ 

Rude little twerps. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 mai 2011 - 01:40 .

[Ashwraith]

highcastle wrote...

Of course, I think we disagree on the underlying issue here: you disagree with Anders' uncompromising cause, whereas I'm sitting here saying "Viva la revolution, baby!"

/brofist

dpMeggers wrote...

So thank you, Anders thread, for allowing me to believe that humanity isn't 100% doomed.

*pats*
Give it time, my friend.
Give it time.

Seriously, though, I agree. We are ridiculously awesome.

Modifié par Ashwraith, 22 mai 2011 - 01:41 .

[Xilizhra]

Regardless, I feel allowing them to meld and them giving them their greatest victory is the most mentally healthy route.

[legbamel]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
I'm gonna step out now before I say something I'll regret.

You mean you don't regret most of your posts already? 

And you don't think that was totally uncalled for?

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...

Riiiight.

Yes, I am.

Anders: "Not even the greatest scholars could tell you where Anders ends and Justice begins."
Ryzaki: "No I can totally see where the split is.  I talked to Anders a few times.  It's right there." *points at it*

That plus no abomination has ever been un-abominationed, and Justice inhabited a corpse in Awakening and not a living being.  All seems to contradict your interpretation which seems only to exist... why, exactly? 

legbamel wrote...

And you don't think that was totally uncalled for?

Ryzaki has a history of taking my posts harshly anyway.  As a result I may as well make it explicit and skip the part where such harshness is read into statements that didn't intend them.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 01:43 .

[Ryzaki]

So being rude is totally called for because you're gonna assume I'm going to take it rudely?

Thanks for saving me the effort of explaining myself. Since of course its perfectly fine to be rude because someone "might" take it wrong.  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 mai 2011 - 01:45 .

[legbamel]

ipgd wrote...
[Major snip for space and repetition]
You can argue that it's better he die with his individuality than his sanity, but he can't be saved.

That's the basis of my preference for the rivalmance:  I'm fighting to preserve as much Anders as I can.  He's going to die.  He wants to die.   He's miserable and falling apart and has been for years.  But I don't have to be cruel to rival him or rub his face in his mistakes (regardless of other people's interpretations of various lines) and I would rather he preserve what he can of himself while he can than be subsumed by this creature that he admits he irretrievably made a part of himself as a bad decision.   And the angst! 

[ipgd]

Then of course is the thing with spirits not needing brains (actual physical brains I mean) to have personalities and such. (Like the spirit of Valor in the Fade along with the demons). If he didn't need a brain then why would he need one in Anders' body?

That was not a literal statement. I meant they shared the same "wavelength" of thought.

[Xilizhra]

legbamel wrote...

ipgd wrote...
[Major snip for space and repetition]
You can argue that it's better he die with his individuality than his sanity, but he can't be saved.

That's the basis of my preference for the rivalmance:  I'm fighting to preserve as much Anders as I can.  He's going to die.  He wants to die.   He's miserable and falling apart and has been for years.  But I don't have to be cruel to rival him or rub his face in his mistakes (regardless of other people's interpretations of various lines) and I would rather he preserve what he can of himself while he can than be subsumed by this creature that he admits he irretrievably made a part of himself as a bad decision.   And the angst! 

I don't agree that he needs to be saved. He'll be sort of a composite creature, but a whole one nonetheless.

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...

So being rude is totally called for because you're gonna assume I'm going to take it rudely?

Yes.

Ryzaki wrote...

Thanks for saving me the effort of explaining myself. Since of course its perfectly fine to be rude because someone "might" take it wrong.  

You would have just backed out of it. 

ipgd wrote...

That was not a literal statement. I meant they shared the same "wavelength" of thought.

Indeed, if they didn't then why would Anders make statements to the effect that their thought processes are inseperable?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 01:49 .