57020 réponses à ce sujet

[Sable Rhapsody]

Addai67 wrote...
Ok, I'm not trying to torment you. lol  I'm at least willing to consider the possibility that it was all meant ironically.  Sort of an anti-Twilight, I guess.  Just not convinced the writer meant it that way.

Jennifer Hepler is full of win, but authorial intent isn't the only element to overthinking BioWare's plots and characters   In fact, I subscribe to my old English professor's philosophy that authorial intent should only be taken as a supplemental viewpoint; too much reliance on it limits the reader, or in this case gamer's, own interpretations.

kromify wrote...

pets are a hoot! [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/happy.png[/smilie]

I totally agree.  I never had a pet before Ser Pounce-a-lot; I just graduated, so now I can finally get a pet of my own.  He's absolutely precious.  He fears trash can lids, loves chin scritches, and wakes me up every morning at five by tickling me with his whiskers 

EDIT: Random ToP is random.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 11 juin 2011 - 10:48 .

[kromify]

nighty night my fellow anderstinians. until tomorrow.

may your day, dreams or daydreams be filled with kittens, debris filled red sunsets, and the pitter patter of tiny blonde apostates

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Addai67 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

One thing I feel probably colors your interpretation is this: you seem to view Vengeance as entirely, simply, and purely a demon, at least by the end of Act 3. And I believe that this view is far too simplistic. If you think of Anders as simply a man with a demon inside him, it's nigh impossible to understand what it is about him that makes the lady cats scream, as Nanny Ogg would say.

Yes, that's what I was thinking when SurelyForth was explaining the sympathy towards Anders' decision to merge with Justice.  It's not only that I/ my mage Hawke would consider Justice a demon or close enough to it not to matter- Anders bascially says this.  "He is no longer my friend, he is vengeance."  That, taken together with the constant warnings Anders gives Hawke that he could lose control and hurt her (physically, not just emotionally) pretty much seals the deal.  This is in act 1, not even in later acts where you see that he wasn't kidding.

Whether the cause is good or bad, whether his methods are wise or not doesn't matter. That isn't the point. The thing that consumes him could be good, or bad, or neutral. The question is this: does your ego allow you to connect with someone who won't always put you first, or can you only exist in a relationship where the sole light of the other person's devotion is upon you?

If you're looking for the sincere question behind the deconstruction, there it is.

Er, weren't others saying earlier that Hawke does basically become Anders' whole world, to the point that his view of the world entirely hinges upon Hawke?

I was already working on a response to KoP that sort of answers this, so I'll just glom them both together. Ugh these posts take so long to properly think out and this thread moves SO FAST sometimes.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
"How can you love someone whose heart is already devoted to a cause, and can never belong entirely to you?"

I think there is a huge difference between say loving a leader who is devoted to a cause and has a lot of reponsabilities that he puts above you. And loving a mentally unstable person with an equally unstable spirit inside him (whether demon, spirit, neutral is irrelevent, it's clearly unstable), who is obsessed and blinded by hatred.

This is, I think, an issue with the "morality" or "influence" system of a video game. You can only go two ways... east or west, up or down, yes or no, whereas the Middle Path is pretty much always the best. But  if you included a middle path, it would usually obviously be the most reasonable, so nobody would do friendship/rival, paragon/renegade. You'd be back to limited choice and linearity.

You can either convince Anders to reject the spirit inside of him or embrace it without question, and neither of those things are a good idea. What he needs to do is talk with it, negotiate with it, work with it. But it's a game and there are only A and B, so you have to choose one, and that makes him seem crazier and more unreachable than he actually is as a character, outside of the context of limited gameplay.

Anders does say that the spirit inside him is no longer Justice, but Vengeance. He doesn't say that Vengeance is a demon unless you rival him (I think. Can anyone confirm?) Basically, if you Rival him you're making him hate that part of himself, and that hatred twists Justice to the point where he is indistinguishable from a demon. If you friend him you make him accept that part of himself, and follow its impulses without question. Neither of these things are what I'd want to do, in this situation.

That's the problem. The best solution for Anders is to accept Justice as a valuable part of him but still question its impulses. That would be the middle path, though, and there's no place for that in a straight-up friendship/rivalry system.

I think that Anders' romance suffers more from the limitations of having only two ways to go (neither of which are explicitly correct or incorrect) than anyone else's. You're basically pushed into either believing that Vengeance is a "demon" (which in turn pushes Vengeance to act more demonic, self-fulfilling prophecy and all that) or you're pushed into just not questioning the issue. To understand the question that is being asked, you have to look at both paths, and see that the truth lies in the middle.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 11 juin 2011 - 10:52 .

[berelinde]

Addai67 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

One thing I feel probably colors your interpretation is this: you seem to view Vengeance as entirely, simply, and purely a demon, at least by the end of Act 3. And I believe that this view is far too simplistic. If you think of Anders as simply a man with a demon inside him, it's nigh impossible to understand what it is about him that makes the lady cats scream, as Nanny Ogg would say.

Yes, that's what I was thinking when SurelyForth was explaining the sympathy towards Anders' decision to merge with Justice.  It's not only that I would consider Justice a demon or close enough to it not to matter- Anders bascially says this.  "He is no longer my friend, he is vengeance."  That, taken together with the constant warnings Anders gives Hawke that he could lose control and hurt her (physically, not just emotionally) pretty much seals the deal.  This is in act 1, not even in later acts where you see that he wasn't kidding.

But for all his warnings, Anders is not the one who slams Hawke against the wall.

Probably best to leave the emotional abuse part out of it. All of the LIs are manipulative. They just want different things.

Whether the cause is good or bad, whether his methods are wise or not doesn't matter. That isn't the point. The thing that consumes him could be good, or bad, or neutral. The question is this: does your ego allow you to connect with someone who won't always put you first, or can you only exist in a relationship where the sole light of the other person's devotion is upon you?

If you're looking for the sincere question behind the deconstruction, there it is.

Er, weren't others saying earlier that Hawke does basically become Anders' whole world, to the point that his view of the world entirely hinges upon Hawke?

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Anders says it himself. Hawke is the most important person in the world to him, and Hawke's attitude toward him defines his emotional state. There are things more important than either Hawke or Anders, though, so no matter what emotional state Anders is in, he cannot ignore the demands of his cause.

[Sarielle]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Sarielle wrote...

Awww, so nobody's biting on the Anders-in-the-Fade question? Boo. I was genuinely curious, not trying to change the subject.

Would Anders be a tranquil if Justice were somehow separated (I don't think that's actually possible, and really that's what I think the fact that Justice, not Anders, follows us into the Fade indicates beyond a shadow of a doubt -- they'll never be able to separate)? Does this mean Anders doesn't dream, only the Justice part of him can?

I believe Anders says later that, when he was in the fade, he feels himself caged behind Justice's eyes, a passenger in his own body. That's why he doesn't go there anymore... he doesn't like that. It's similar to how he describes being an Abomination to Merril... screaming, trapped, trying to move your own body, but you can't.

What he's too dumb (or hurt, or trapped, or tormented) to realize is that, when he's trying to "keep control," he's putting Justice through exactly that torment.

Meh, I'm in the "Justice is a demon, or at least damned near one" camp so it's hard for me to sympathize with him. I didn't like him in Awakenings in his unadultered (but already corrupted!) form either, though. He has no place in a world where sometimes you have to be practical and make compromises.

Which, of course, is a lot of what the Anders story is telling us.

My Orlesian Warden -- who might have been the "best" warden I had, as
far as getting what needed to be done, done -- killed Justice, I think. So I am admittedly biased.

I don't remember that line from Anders, but it's been awhile since I last played -- my other playthrough was a few months ago. I'll be on the lookout for it this time. I guess more than anything I'm hoping the game writers actually THOUGHT about the Fade sequence, and that they're actually had a solid lore base for it rather than "it was cool" or Justice fanservice or what have you.

[KnightofPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
This is, I think, an issue with the "morality" or "influence" system of a video game. You can only go two ways... east or west, up or down, yes or no, whereas the Middle Path is pretty much always the best. But  if you included a middle path, it would usually obviously be the most reasonable, so nobody would do friendship/rival, paragon/renegade. You'd be back to limited choice and linearity.

You can either convince Anders to reject the spirit inside of him or embrace it without question, and neither of those things are a good idea. What he needs to do is talk with it, negotiate with it, work with it. But it's a game and there are only A and B, so you have to choose one, and that makes him seem crazier and more unreachable than he actually is as a character, outside of the context of limited gameplay.

Agreed, I think Hawke, no matter how she deals with it, is absolutely the worse kind of person to give Anders advice.  She just doesnt do anything.

I would have either tried to help him mroe actively. Or manipulate him if I find him useful. Or just kill him.

Anders does say that the spirit inside him is no longer Justice, but Vengeance. He doesn't say that Vengeance is a demon unless you rival him (I think. Can anyone confirm?)

He doesn't have to be a demon to be dangerous and unstable.

That's the problem. The best solution for Anders is to accept Justice as a valuable part of him but still question its impulses. That would be the middle path, though, and there's no place for that in a straight-up friendship/rivalry system.

The best solution, if Anders is strong enough, is to bend Justice to his will. But he can't. So yea, a compromise of sorts, but considering the context around him, even if Anders wanted to compromise, I don't see Justice / Vengeance accepting for long.
 

To understand the question that is being asked, you have to look at both paths, and see that the truth lies in the middle.

I don't necessarily agree.

Even if Anders can be in the middle, he is still a mentally unstable person with an unstable spirit, trying to balance it out. I do not think Aders would have managed to balance it out so well so as to say he is no longer the unstable mess that he is. One push would be enough to ruin it.

And in either case, it's simply not the Anders we have in the game.

[Addai]

berelinde wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

One thing I feel probably colors your interpretation is this: you seem to view Vengeance as entirely, simply, and purely a demon, at least by the end of Act 3. And I believe that this view is far too simplistic. If you think of Anders as simply a man with a demon inside him, it's nigh impossible to understand what it is about him that makes the lady cats scream, as Nanny Ogg would say.

Yes, that's what I was thinking when SurelyForth was explaining the sympathy towards Anders' decision to merge with Justice.  It's not only that I would consider Justice a demon or close enough to it not to matter- Anders bascially says this.  "He is no longer my friend, he is vengeance."  That, taken together with the constant warnings Anders gives Hawke that he could lose control and hurt her (physically, not just emotionally) pretty much seals the deal.  This is in act 1, not even in later acts where you see that he wasn't kidding.

But for all his warnings, Anders is not the one who slams Hawke against the wall.

Probably best to leave the emotional abuse part out of it. All of the LIs are manipulative. They just want different things.

Yeah, I did not get that on my first game (the wall slam), and I've already said that Fenris' romance is on the line for me, too.

But the difference is- Anders starts out saying, so often and so passionately, that he's going to hurt you, I have a hard time not taking him at his word.  Especially since he is in fact possessed, and you've already seen him be taken over by Justice two for two times you've encountered him.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

berelinde wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Er, weren't others saying earlier that Hawke does basically become Anders' whole world, to the point that his view of the world entirely hinges upon Hawke?

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Anders says it himself. Hawke is the most important person in the world to him, and Hawke's attitude toward him defines his emotional state. There are things more important than either Hawke or Anders, though, so no matter what emotional state Anders is in, he cannot ignore the demands of his cause.

Oooh, this point is very good. And very important... something I missed in my last post.

In Act 1, Anders doesn't know how to feel about Justice. He's confused. He's looking for answers to a bunch of questions. "Who am I? Am I a monster now? Am I a person beyond my newfound cause?" These questions are an essential part of him, and Hawke is the first one to offer answers.

For Friend Hawke, the answers are thus: "You are JAnders. Not a monster. Go mages!" 

For Rival Hawke, the answers are thus: "You are Anders. A troubled man who is in danger of becoming a monster. Your cause is hurting you."

Anders is shaped by these answers, but they are answers to questions he created himself.  Anders isn't shaping himself to be what Hawke wants or needs, Hawke is influencing how Anders feels about parts of himself that are unchangeable constants, and one of those unchangeable constants is that the cause of mages is what drives Anders more than anything else.

[Sarielle]

Is it taboo to say the wall slam didn't really bother me (as a player...obviously Hawke was okay with it)? To me, that was not enough to actually hurt someone; a precursor to slightly rough sex, if anything.

Anders "hurting you" (if done physically) would probably be more like going blue and fiery on your ass.

[ademska]

Addai67 wrote...

But the difference is- Anders starts out saying, so often and so passionately, that he's going to hurt you, I have a hard time not taking him at his word.  Especially since he is in fact possessed, and you've already seen him be taken over by Justice two for two times you've encountered him.

i will bring up with trepidation the fact that, if you romance anders as male hawke, anders has virtually no dialogue about fear of hurting him. which brings with it a whole new set of implications, but whatever.

[Sarielle]

ademska wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

But the difference is- Anders starts out saying, so often and so passionately, that he's going to hurt you, I have a hard time not taking him at his word.  Especially since he is in fact possessed, and you've already seen him be taken over by Justice two for two times you've encountered him.

i will bring up with trepidation the fact that, if you romance anders as male hawke, anders has virtually no dialogue about fear of hurting him. which brings with it a whole new set of implications, but whatever.

That is extremely intruiging.

[ademska]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

ademska wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

But the
difference is- Anders starts out saying, so often and so passionately,
that he's going to hurt you, I have a hard time not taking him at his
word.  Especially since he is in fact possessed, and you've already seen
him be taken over by Justice two for two times you've encountered him.

i will bring up with trepidation the fact that, if you romance anders as male
hawke, anders has virtually no dialogue about fear of hurting him.
which brings with it a whole new set of implications, but whatever.

I've thought of this as well, and often wondered why this is. Perhaps this would be seen as emasculating/belittling the male character? Double standards and all.

yeah, the reason i bring it up is because i honestly have no i dea what i think about it, and i'm interested to see if anyone else has given it any thought.  i'm not inclined to completely classify it as the writers trying to avoid emasculation, because in the larger picture it's bioware and they don't have a history of this, and on a more microscopic level the rest of the m!hawke-anders (and. tbqh, fenris) romance doesn't change things i would expect that writing mentality to want to alter.  for instance, not changing the sex animations between male and female hawke.

another possibility is that it's a reflection of anders' views on gender things but I HAVE NO IDEA

[ipgd]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

I've thought of this as well, and often wondered why this is. Perhaps this would be seen as emasculating/belittling the male character? Double standards and all.

I want to metawank about it, but the only conclusion I can realistically come to is that someone thought the "NO GO AWAY I'LL HURT YOU" **** would be specifically appealing to women and not men. Thankfully, this only happens in Act I.

[Sarielle]

ipgd wrote...

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

I've thought of this as well, and often wondered why this is. Perhaps this would be seen as emasculating/belittling the male character? Double standards and all.

I want to metawank about it, but the only conclusion I can realistically come to is that someone thought the "NO GO AWAY I'LL HURT YOU" **** would be specifically appealing to women and not men. Thankfully, this only happens in Act I.

I...really hope that isn't the reason.

[ademska]

ipgd wrote...

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

I've thought of this as well, and often wondered why this is. Perhaps this would be seen as emasculating/belittling the male character? Double standards and all.

I want to metawank about it, but the only conclusion I can realistically come to is that someone thought the "NO GO AWAY I'LL HURT YOU" **** would be specifically appealing to women and not men. Thankfully, this only happens in Act I.

eughhhh this is why i have avoided thinking too hard about it, myself, because i'm rather afraid of what i might find

fwiw though, it happens in act 2 as well.  i played male and female romances with him, and every flirting dialogue in female is followed with a "hahahaha OH WAIT NO". not so much with male.

[Collider]

Sarielle wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

I've thought of this as well, and often wondered why this is. Perhaps this would be seen as emasculating/belittling the male character? Double standards and all.

I want to metawank about it, but the only conclusion I can realistically come to is that someone thought the "NO GO AWAY I'LL HURT YOU" **** would be specifically appealing to women and not men. Thankfully, this only happens in Act I.

I...really hope that isn't the reason.

What else could it be, though? Off the top of my head, I can only see it as being there to appeal to female players, an oversight, or that Anders thinks that males are generally in need of less protection. I'm sure there are other possible reasons, but it seems likely to be one of those or a combination.

[Sarielle]

Collider wrote...

Sarielle wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

I've thought of this as well, and often wondered why this is. Perhaps this would be seen as emasculating/belittling the male character? Double standards and all.

I want to metawank about it, but the only conclusion I can realistically come to is that someone thought the "NO GO AWAY I'LL HURT YOU" **** would be specifically appealing to women and not men. Thankfully, this only happens in Act I.

I...really hope that isn't the reason.

What else could it be, though? Off the top of my head, I can only see it as being there to appeal to female players, an oversight, or that Anders thinks that males are generally in need of less protection. I'm sure there are other possible reasons, but it seems likely to be one of those or a combination.

Oh, it probably IS the reason. It just makes me sad, is all; I think they're missing their demographic a little on that one.

[berelinde]

Addai67 wrote...

But the difference is- Anders starts out saying, so often and so passionately, that he's going to hurt you, I have a hard time not taking him at his word.  Especially since he is in fact possessed, and you've already seen him be taken over by Justice two for two times you've encountered him.

I interpreted the "I'm going to hurt you" business as just one more of the melodramatic, idiotic things that someone who has never been in love says because they think they're supposed to. This is going back to ipgd's trope deconstruction that you hate, but "I can't. I'll only hurt you" is one of those things that iconic "bad boys" say to iconic heroines. To me, it was a wink at the camera.

If you insist on reading it straight, you might interpret as the kind of thing that someone who has never been in love might say in an effort to convince himself that he's being noble.

And really, you see Fenris* rip the heart out of people at least twice (Tevinter slaver in Bait and Switch, Hadriana... are there more? His banter with Isabela suggests that she's seen him do it more than once.), murder people out of spite or because Hawke says so (first slaver in Bitter Pill, Danzig, Kelder, etc.), *and* break a solemn vow ("You have my word."), so gettig skittish because the guy says "I'll hurt you" seems a bit... odd.

*When I first typed this, I wrote "Fenders." I hope you're happy, ipgd.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Since when women find that kind of stuff appealing?

[CulturalGeekGirl]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Anders does say that the spirit inside him is no longer Justice, but Vengeance. He doesn't say that Vengeance is a demon unless you rival him (I think. Can anyone confirm?)

He doesn't have to be a demon to be dangerous and unstable.

That's the problem. The best solution for Anders is to accept Justice as a valuable part of him but still question its impulses. That would be the middle path, though, and there's no place for that in a straight-up friendship/rivalry system.

The best solution, if Anders is strong enough, is to bend Justice to his will. But he can't. So yea, a compromise of sorts, but considering the context around him, even if Anders wanted to compromise, I don't see Justice / Vengeance accepting for long.
 

To understand the question that is being asked, you have to look at both paths, and see that the truth lies in the middle.

I don't necessarily agree.

Even if Anders can be in the middle, he is still a mentally unstable person with an unstable spirit, trying to balance it out. I do not think Aders would have managed to balance it out so well so as to say he is no longer the unstable mess that he is. One push would be enough to ruin it.

And in either case, it's simply not the Anders we have in the game.

I think this comes down again to our fundamentally different views on the value of chaos and blind gambles.

I love Xanatos. I respect TiM. I pity Loghain. I can't imagine why one would put him in the same category as the other two. The first two had many marvelous plans that worked and were fully formed. The latter had a marvelous, fully formed plan that was so fundamentally stupid it might have lost his country to the blight if he had succeeded completely.

For me, a stupid gamble that works is a million times better than an elaborate plan that fails.

Sometimes you just have to trust your instincts, close your eyes, and leap.

Sometimes you have to throw yourself at the ground and miss.

Sometimes you have to watch for that moment, and when it comes, do not hesitate to leap.

It is only when you fall that you learn whether or not you can fly.

You admire men who stand on the edge of the cliff pushing others off until they can figure out empirically how it's done. But sometimes you can't. Sometimes there's nothing for it but to plummet blind, or be left behind by history.

[SurelyForth]

ipgd wrote...

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

I've thought of this as well, and often wondered why this is. Perhaps this would be seen as emasculating/belittling the male character? Double standards and all.

I want to metawank about it, but the only conclusion I can realistically come to is that someone thought the "NO GO AWAY I'LL HURT YOU" **** would be specifically appealing to women and not men. Thankfully, this only happens in Act I.

Yeah, it plays into that Edward Cullen wanting Bella but staying away for her. own. good. Harf.

I just skip flirting with him in Act 1 completely now and instead get Justice being all indignant that Hawke calls him creepy. It's pretty awesome, and I just pretend that they have normal, non-insulting flirtations at other times.

Modifié par SurelyForth, 11 juin 2011 - 11:24 .

[beckaliz]

 Wow, that's something I hadn't noticed, does he really say more of that stuff to a female Hawke? I guess actually I haven't romanced Anders as a female yet.  And my Aniselle is friends with him but she turned him down in Act 1 during one of the early flirt convos.

But as a male, Anders STILL says, "If your door is open I'll come to you tonight. If not, I'll know you finally took my warning seriously." Or something like that. And my Correm is like "HAHAHHA ok, I'm a big boy, you're such an adorable little freedom fighter, I don't care".

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Since when women find that kind of stuff appealing?

You mean, "GO AWAY I'LL HURT YOU"? Since Twilight, apparently. Why has no one sent the templars after that abomination, yet?

Twilight makes me want to become violent. Everything about those characters and their dysfunction makes me want to overeat just so I have enough in my stomach to hurl projectilve vomit. Why Bella is shown as being a "strong female character" rather than the psychotically codependent freak that she is is beyond me. *ahem* I have to cut myself off there actually XD;;; because Twilight-bashing can easily become mega angry rant.

Modifié par beckaliz, 11 juin 2011 - 11:27 .