57020 réponses à ce sujet

[Sialater]

Ryzaki wrote...

Sialater wrote...
I adore you.  Gotta edit it since I have new stuff.  Brb.

 

Still disagree on the borderline abusive bit too. 

Yes, I know.  But having done some of the Rivalry stuff, I stand by it.  But it's more in the vein of tough love.

Bah, ToP:

Modifié par Sialater, 08 juin 2011 - 06:53 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

BlueMew wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And if Thedas does not have one and / or does not have the proper context, then patience is the way to go. Not I dont' know what kind of entity that is no sane doing such an act. 

Uh. I'm not sure if I understood that last bit. But in Anders' shoes, I might have taken the same leap (i.e. merging with Justice and end up like that). Not because I'm nuts (or am I? Let's practice the MUAHAHAHA!)  but because I'm human and not as cool-headed as I'd like to be. If you treat people, especially with potentially dangerous powers, like monsters, sooner or later they're going to behave like wounded monsters in an act of desperation.

And I am going to look at them like wounded animals. Key word, animals.
Yea, it's human (and I dont 'see anything intrinsically valuable about it). Doesn't mean it's rational and prudent.

[Ryzaki]

Sialater wrote...

Yes, I know.  But having done some of the Rivalry stuff, I stand by it.  But it's more in the vein of tough love.

 

Only some?  

And you probably did it with Douche Hawke he's abusive towards everyone.   

Ah well. Do tell me when you've finished rivalry with funny/diplomatic Hawke. 

[mellifera]

Ryzaki wrote...

Sialater wrote...
I adore you.  Gotta edit it since I have new stuff.  Brb.

 

Still disagree on the borderline abusive bit too. 

Well, I think that in instance it's not as much as how you/your Hawke percieves it as much as the ultimate result and how the affected person reacts to it... which in the end = totally broken. 

[Ryzaki]

yukidama wrote...
Well, I think that in instance it's not as much as how you/your Hawke percieves it as much as the ultimate result and how the affected person reacts to it... which in the end = totally broken. 

And I disagree on the totally broken bit. I don't see him as completely broken on the rivalry path. (and no I don't think Hawke can fix him with the power of luuuuv before I even hear it). Everything's crashing around him to me at that point. He can decide if he wants to stay on the ground or pick himself up.

Not to mention Justice played a much larger part in that "breaking" than Hawke did. If Hawke's abusve Justice is doubly (if not triply) so. 

I see that scenario like two people fighting over a child. Either someone's gonna be strong enough to bring it to their side or the child is gonna force someone to let go. (frankly I'm hoping Anders gets enough will to yank his hands from both of them). 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 08 juin 2011 - 07:12 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...
and no I don't think Hawke can fix him with the power of luuuuv before I even hear it.

There is also the risk of having a cheesy ending like that of X-Men 3. Brrr

[Sialater]

Ryzaki wrote...

Sialater wrote...

Yes, I know.  But having done some of the Rivalry stuff, I stand by it.  But it's more in the vein of tough love.

 

Only some?  

And you probably did it with Douche Hawke he's abusive towards everyone.   

Ah well. Do tell me when you've finished rivalry with funny/diplomatic Hawke. 

Nah, Anna was just serious about everything and never a douche.  But... I mentioned I couldn't totally rival him on her either, right? 

I'm a weak woman.

[Sialater]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
and no I don't think Hawke can fix him with the power of luuuuv before I even hear it.

There is also the risk of having a cheesy ending like that of X-Men 3. Brrr

Bite your tongue. 

[BlueMew]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

BlueMew wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And if Thedas does not have one and / or does not have the proper context, then patience is the way to go. Not I dont' know what kind of entity that is no sane doing such an act. 

Uh. I'm not sure if I understood that last bit. But in Anders' shoes, I might have taken the same leap (i.e. merging with Justice and end up like that). Not because I'm nuts (or am I? Let's practice the MUAHAHAHA!)  but because I'm human and not as cool-headed as I'd like to be. If you treat people, especially with potentially dangerous powers, like monsters, sooner or later they're going to behave like wounded monsters in an act of desperation.

And I am going to look at them like wounded animals. Key word, animals.

For me, keyword 'wounded'. Someone'd have to take responsibility as the doctor who created the monster. And I didn't see that happen so far.

Yea, it's human (and I dont 'see anything intrinsically valuable about it). Doesn't mean it's rational and prudent. 

No, it doesn't, we can agree on that at least... it was an observation.

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
and no I don't think Hawke can fix him with the power of luuuuv before I even hear it.

There is also the risk of having a cheesy ending like that of X-Men 3. Brrr

 

Refresh my memory. What happened exactly? 

Sialater wrote...
Nah, Anna was just serious about everything and never a douche.  But... I mentioned I couldn't totally rival him on her either, right?  

I'm a weak woman.

 

Very. I love you regardless though. 

[ipgd]

Ryzaki wrote...

Sialater wrote...

Yes, I know.  But having done some of the Rivalry stuff, I stand by it.  But it's more in the vein of tough love.

 

Only some?  

And you probably did it with Douche Hawke he's abusive towards everyone.   

Ah well. Do tell me when you've finished rivalry with funny/diplomatic Hawke. 

Nice phrasing doesn't really make what Hawke does to Anders on the rivalry path any less corrosive. Possibly more so, really, because he has less reason to discount Hawke as a rude asshole; it reinforces his self-loathing to have someone he trusts and respects repeatedly driving the point home that he's an abhorrent monster. While Hawke doesn't necessarily have to think of it that way, Anders certainly does, and Hawke's opposition to Justice on the rivalry path becomes an implicit confirmation of his poor self-image.


Edit: Granted, I like the rivalry path, but I can't really see it as any sort of path to growth or redemption while he lives. Anders is a delicate little princess.

Modifié par ipgd, 08 juin 2011 - 07:14 .

[Ryzaki]

ipgd wrote...
Nice phrasing doesn't really make what Hawke does to Anders on the rivalry path any less corrosive. Possibly more so, really, because he has less reason to discount Hawke as a rude asshole; it reinforces his self-loathing to have someone he trusts and respects repeatedly driving the point home that he's an abhorrent monster. While Hawke doesn't necessarily have to think of it that way, Anders certainly does, and Hawke's opposition to Justice on the rivalry path becomes an implicit confirmation of his poor self-image.

 

Except Hawke doesn't keep reinforcing that Anders is abhorrent monster. Justice and Anders aren't the same being. They're simply in the same body.

But I already know where this arguement is gonna go. 

I like nasty horrible redemptions where one walks the path wondering the whole time if they're better off dead and what good are they really doing? Just to find some ultimate purpose by the end that makes the bloodshead the horror and the hypocrisy worth it. It's not pleasant, it's not happy but at the end they find some meaning in everything that occured. They've done some good to offset the bad.  

If Anders simply dies after participating in the RoA those lives he ended are meangingless. His goal of mage freeedom is no closer, his minor goal of stopping the war is no closer. It's not a redemption in any form of the word to me. It is simply pointless. And I highly doubt that was the author's intention. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 08 juin 2011 - 07:25 .

[ipgd]

Ryzaki wrote...

Except Hawke doesn't keep reinforcing that Anders is abhorrent monster.

As I said... Hawke doesn't have to say that, but Anders clearly believes he is, and his opposition feeds into his melodramatic emo tearfulness. Much of his instability in the rivalry path is his own doing, certainly.

Modifié par ipgd, 08 juin 2011 - 07:19 .

[Ryzaki]

ipgd wrote...
As I said... Hawke doesn't have to say that, but Anders clearly believes he is, and his opposition feeds into his melodramatic emo tearfulness. Much of his instability in the rivalry path is his own doing, certainly.

 

And if anyone is reinforcing that it's Justice. By taking over his body, causing blackouts, threatening helpless girls and blowing up Chantrys. 

Much of his instability isn't his own doing. It's the power struggle between him and Justice. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 08 juin 2011 - 07:22 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Sometimes you see a chance and you take it. That may be reckless, yes, but recklessness isn't really a bad thing.

There was an even better chance. Rally up the people and nobles to side with mages.
I don't see any intrinsic value in taking a chance whenever it presents itself, without really knowing what you're doing.

People keep saying this: "turn popular opinion" "rally up the people." That's what mages have been trying to do for thousands of years, and what Anders has already been trying to do for six years. When mages aren't allowed to walk free and talk with people, that popular opinion shebang isn't going to happen. It might happen in one city, but it isn't going to happen Thedas-wide, and if it happens in just one city, or just one country, at one point, the Chantry is going to Exalted March their ass or Orlais is going to invade, and it'll be crushed. It's a known political phenomenon that opinions on a minority grow more positive when the average citizen has routine contact with members of that minority. With the Chantry becoming ever-more-restrictive, there's no real chance for the public to be rallied. Believing there is seems painfully naive.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
You believe it would be better for the mages to slowly sink into deeper despair, exploitation, and slavery forever, never acting at all unless a situation came about where they simultaneously had a decent plan for victory that seemed likely to work and an agent capable of acting. By your philosophy, it seems that if there is not a situation where you have a fully fleshed out plan you think is likely to work, it's better to just lay down and die than to make some ridiculous last stand. It's better to miss a good chance and wait forever in vain for a better one than to take a chance when you do not have everything planned out ahead.

Not at all no. I believe mages should first and foremost associate their agenda with something else, instead of think it can work as a seperate agenda. And like I said in the post I quoted from the other thread, the world is already changing and the Chantry is already declining. If the mages want to have a better future, they should associate themselves with the new rising order. And that will require action. By establishing connections, persuading, organizing and planning. Might not be as bombasitc as blowing up buildings, but certainly more efficient.

And where did you get the idea that all mages are going to die? It's only in Anders paranoia, that he sees this. Perhaps those in Kirkwall were all going to die, but mages elsewhere were not. And now, he may as well just signed their death sentence, because the madman doesn't have patience. And if Anders wanted to make a last stand, he should have gone to the gallows and suicide by Templars, rather than do what he did.

And Anders missed the good chance, that's the point. He took the bad one.
...

Nothing lasts forever. What mages should do is work to influence the shift of the status quo to their favor by aligning themselves with rising factions. There is never a guaranteed path to victory. But there's a difference between going blind and going with some plan and idea in your head as well as accumulating advantages and allies (instead of alienating them). 

And do not confuse mages with Anders. I said Anders should never act on anything because he's insane.
Mages can and should act. Subtly and with prudence.

All the things you suggest "mages" do are impossible, because "mages" aren't allowed to associate or organize in any significant way. The only way to get mages to the point where they CAN do that kind of thing is to cause the leaders of the circles to simultaneously see common cause and free themselves from the Templars to the extent that they are now allowed to communicate, both with each other and the outside world. They cannot do this while the Chantry is still in control without invoking open warfare. The first circle leader who tried to contact another would see his circle annulled or marched upon. The first circle leader who tried to talk with the Dalish or the city elves or Ferelden would see Orlais declaring war on whoever he approached. They do get together in Nevarra to elect their Grand Enchanter, but even that is done right under the nose of the Divine, and the Grand Enchanter is essentially the Divine's pet.

Right now there are, at maximum, four free mages we know of who are openly free and have any access to political power in Kirkwall/Ferelden/Orlais (not counting Flemeth, and outside of Tevinter). They are: Anders, The Warden, Morrigan, and MageHawke. Morrigan is probably still gone, and in many scenarios neither the Warden Commander nor Hawke are mages (in my cannon playthrough the Warden is a Dalish rogue and Hawke is an ex-templar-in-training Warrior). There isn't and cannot be a Mage Malcom X or a Mage Harvey Milk, because mages can't organize, can't act politically without being legally and summarily executed. There aren't enough free and influential mages to start a movment.

The existing "free mage" organizations we encounter are either so decentralized as to be powerless (out-of-circle Libertarians) or so corrupt as to be dangerous (Resolutionists). The only way the mages can do any of the things you suggest is to make the heads of the individual circles, the members of the Aequitarians, the most sane and moderate of all mages, realize they need to act; while also simultaneously giving them a means to co-ordinate with each other by triggering an event that results in a coordinated break with the Chantry.

This is all about giving mages agency, the ability to organize, the ability to communicate and build allies the way you suggest they should. Without destabilization of the Circle system, it is impossible for mages to take the kind of actions you say they should take, because of how limited and restricted their communications are. Karl was made tranquil for even sending a letter to a friend asking for help, can you imagine what would have happened if Orsino had tried to contact the heads of the other circles for aid? One of the illustrative points of Kirkwall was that mages are forbidden and unable to seek aid from or build alliances with anyone but the Grand Clerics or the Divine.

I was using the phrase "lay down and die" metaphorically, to mean "give up." I don't believe that all the mages will be literally killed, but I also don't believe anything will get better unless mages are able to organize in some significant way, and the only way they can organize in sufficient numbers to make alliances and broker deals is if the Chantry's hold on them breaks long enough to allow them to organize and communicate. This attack causes such a break, and I do not see a good way to do so without a similar flashpoint.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
You seem to believe that it's better to never act unless you have a clear plan for victory. However, you also believe that it's almost certain that a better time to act will come for mages soon, and if it doesn't they should just be content with their lot forever.

I believe that it's better to act if you think it might have a chance of helping, even if you have no clear plan for victory. I don't believe that a better time to act will come any time soon, and I also don't believe that the mages should be content with their lot.

And how would you plan to win the war exactly? And what kind of society would you want? What institutions would you build? How would you make people accept it? How would you prevent mages from going insane or out of control?  How do you plan to deal with a Qunari invasion?...etc etc.

I care about these kind of questions. Not what I see as eloquently put but ultimately empty rethoric, with all due respect.

I care about all these questions too, but I think that Anders expects that the leaders of the mages will organize enough to answer them, given the chance. Someone had an excellent post about the different coalitions of mages... there are the Resolutionists, who suck and can't be trusted, the Libertarians who are too disorganized to really gain any useful political allies, the Aequitarians who believe that mages should be governed by some rules, and the Loyalists who do not question the Chantry in any way. The party who needs to be goaded into action are the Aequitarians, the dominant party in the Circle. This is about taking the reins of mage revolutionary freedom away from the Resolutionists and forcing the Aequitarians to ally themselves with the Libertarians rather than the Loyalists.

The hope is that, at the end of all this, the result will be something moderate, a compromise between the views of the Aequitarians and the Libertarians, a more independent circle with a cooperative relationship with the Chantry and the Templars.

Anders used to be an Aequitarian himself (in Awakenings he calls the Libertarians crazy), so he is well aware of the limitations they suffer in communicating with the outside world, as well as being aware of the pernicious influence of the Loyalists. He wants to give the Aequitarians the same wakeup call he has recieved... that the Loyalists will just lay down when the Rite is called upon innocents. While Anders is firmly Libertarian right now, I think that he knows that the Aequitarians are the most powerful faction, and the one that will answer all the questions of organization when everything shakes out.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 juin 2011 - 07:34 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

BlueMew wrote...
For me, keyword 'wounded'. Someone'd have to take responsibility as the doctor who created the monster. And I didn't see that happen so far.

Oh most certainly and I am the last person to say that the Chantry system hasen't become defunct.

Ryzaki wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
and no I don't think Hawke can fix him with the power of luuuuv before I even hear it.

There is also the risk of having a cheesy ending like that of X-Men 3. Brrr

 

Refresh my memory. What happened exactly? 

 

Wolverine killed Phoenix (Jean Grey being insane kind of like Anders), in a very forced romance that didn't make much sense, in an anti-climatic scene.

[ipgd]

Ryzaki wrote...

And if anyone is reinforcing that it's Justice. By taking over his body, causing blackouts, threatening helpless girls and blowing up Chantrys.

Given that Hawke is the only variable in the friendship/rivalry dichotomy, he's clearly influenced by Hawke's opinion of his merger with Justice and his cause.

Much of his instability isn't his own doing. It's the power struggle between him and Justice.

I am speaking of them as a collective entity and specifically attempting to avoid that argument :innocent: Even strictly separately speaking, it's his own negative self-perceptions regarding his relationship with Justice that bring his depression about.

[Sialater]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

BlueMew wrote...
For me, keyword 'wounded'. Someone'd have to take responsibility as the doctor who created the monster. And I didn't see that happen so far.

Oh most certainly and I am the last person to say that the Chantry system hasen't become defunct.

Ryzaki wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
and no I don't think Hawke can fix him with the power of luuuuv before I even hear it.

There is also the risk of having a cheesy ending like that of X-Men 3. Brrr

 

Refresh my memory. What happened exactly? 

 

Wolverine killed Phoenix (Jean Grey being insane kind of like Anders), in a very forced romance that didn't make much sense, in an anti-climatic scene.

Don't forget the passionate kiss as she dissolved. 

[Sialater]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

*snip excellent Wall O' Text*

~standing ovation~

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Wolverine killed Phoenix (Jean Grey being insane kind of like Anders), in a very forced romance that didn't make much sense, in an anti-climatic scene.

 

Oh yeah I remember that now. :/ That...is exactly what I don't want to see end up happening to Anders. 

I do wonder how long it'll take friendship Anders to become so dangerous that Hawke'll have to kill him. At some point in time the mages are gonna need to compromise (and there's a good chance this'll be with the chantry). I don't see Janders being pleased with that. 

[berelinde]

ipgd wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

That would be extremily ironic and imo, completely undeserving.

If there is such a cult in the future of DA, I hope we can wipe them out.

Personally, I'd think it'd be interesting to see exactly how the mythologization of a martyr/religious figure happens, having seen the real man behind it firsthand.

Also, it would be boundlessly entertaining.

That's what was going through my head after the jenga incident. What will history makeof this? Will future generations revile him as a demon (symbolically speaking, since we all know the literal truth) or revere him as a savior? Many mythological figures could have been real people. What were they like? How will Thedas remember Anders? Or will Hawke get the blame, one way or another?

[Ryzaki]

ipgd wrote...

Given that Hawke is the only variable in the friendship/rivalry dichotomy, he's clearly influenced by Hawke's opinion of his merger with Justice and his cause.

Influenced enough to start questioning Justice which is enough to make Justice flip out. If Hawke gives him no reason to question Justice he doesn't. I see Hawke as asking him questions he didn't bother to look to closely at himself. Questions that were probably discouraged by Justice.

I am speaking of them as a collective entity and specifically attempting to avoid that argument :innocent: Even strictly separately speaking, it's his own negative self-perceptions regarding his relationship with Justice that bring his depression about.

I don't see them as a collective entity. Us not agreeing on that means as a result we're probably not gonna agree on anything else. Justice is a seperate being with different thoughts and ideals. Awakening made that perfectly clear to me. This isn't a dynamic between two beings but rather three. Trying to remove Justice from the equation is doing both him and Anders a disservice in my view. So really us debating this when we don't agree on how many invidiuals are involved is...pretty pointless isn't it? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 08 juin 2011 - 07:45 .

[SurelyForth]

Ryzaki wrote...

I like nasty horrible redemptions where one walks the path wondering the whole time if they're better off dead and what good are they really doing? Just to find some ultimate purpose by the end that makes the bloodshead the horror and the hypocrisy worth it. It's not pleasant, it's not happy but at the end they find some meaning in everything that occured. They've done some good to offset the bad.  

If Anders simply dies after participating in the RoA those lives he ended are meangingless. His goal of mage freeedom is no closer, his minor goal of stopping the war is no closer. It's not a redemption in any form of the word to me. It is simply pointless. And I highly doubt that was the author's intention. 

Actually, his goal of mage freedom is closer, since the Circles rise up no matter what. 

And the lives he ended during the RoA will never be meaningless because he's basically killing himself, only versions of himself that weren't fortunate enough to be conscripted into the Wardens or have powerful friends to help and protect him. 

It is an intensely ****ed up situation and that's the point. I don't think it's about redemption, to be honest, and I would wager that by the time everything has happened he feels he doesn't deserve redemption so everything that Hawke might force him to do after that is just...torture, basically, because he's never going to be in a place where he is whole and healthy enough to live with what he's done. 

Modifié par SurelyForth, 08 juin 2011 - 07:48 .