57020 réponses à ce sujet

[beckaliz]

Darnit, I'm starting to waver in my resolve to execute Anders in my canon. >_<* But that's what I did the first time around on my unspoiled PT and I feel that it would be metagaming and that I should stick with my initial intuition.

At the least, I'm definitely going to keep a save file right before the end so that I can take this Hawke and intentionally metagame depending on what we see in DA3...

[DreamerM]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

Maker's pierced nipple, you guys. This is, like, the 1800 page anniversary. This must be celebrated.

Picspam? Cake? Scotch? I'm all for it.

I've been saving my best DA2 song for just such an occasion. It's not much, but even in the saddest versions of Anders' story, it gives comfort.

The Times They Are A Changin'

I would like to add my own humble song choice. It's not dylan, but it's a sad and poetic expression of the dilema facing one man who can't tell vengence from justice and how, functionally, they may be the same thing....

Killing for Love


You've got a heart on fire,

it's bursting with desires.



You've got a heart filled with passion.

Will you let it burn for hate or compassion.



What's the point

if you hate, die and kill for love.

Whats the point with a love that

makes you hate and kill for.... 

[Reflection Muse]

DreamerM wrote...
I would like to add my own humble song choice. It's not dylan, but it's a sad and poetic expression of the dilema facing one man who can't tell vengence from justice and how, functionally, they may be the same thing....

Killing for Love


You've got a heart on fire,

it's bursting with desires.



You've got a heart filled with passion.

Will you let it burn for hate or compassion.



What's the point

if you hate, die and kill for love.

Whats the point with a love that

makes you hate and kill for.... 

That's so beautiful and bittersweet. Very fitting, indeed.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

There's not reall a good way to say this, but... I think Bioware wanted to get a 50/50 split between mage and templar siding, or as close as they could to it. From what I can see on this forum, they seem to have succeeded, at great cost to Anders himself. Which is fine, I think the realized that history would not be kind to him when he did what he did.

Any more direct evidence of the Templars' wrongdoing would have upset the decision balance, which is, I think, something they wanted to avoid. And if Bethany was sweet and compliant and never spoke against the circle, then there's no reason for anything bad to happen to her.

The question is more complicated than just "are the Templars better or worse than the mages?" Before the end of DA2 I was for modifying the current system: have a non-chantry-and-non-mage advisory board to investigate abuses and moderate complaints, have a more concrete and transparent system for earning trips out and out-of-circle postings, have all Templars operate with an independent observer (elven or dwarven if possible) to report malfeasance, work out a deal with Rivain to allow mages who disagree with the system to leave peacefully, if possible. That kind of thing.

Most people agree that the system needs to change somehow, at least a little. The question posed isn't and shouldn't be purely "Mages vs. Templars, who is right?" The real question is "Is there any real chance that the system will change without massive intervension and revolution?" Siding with the Templars is essentially saying "Probably not, but meh. It's more important to maintain peace than foster change." Siding with the mages is essentially saying "I don't see things getting better without revolt, and they will likely get worse. I wish it were not so, but it is."

The simple question of "Total Mage Freedom vs. Abuse and Domination" is just the easy one. It's not there for the people who are thinking about all the things. It's about preserving the status quo versus the dangerous risks of violent change.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 15 juin 2011 - 07:39 .

[Sialater]

pagerunner wrote...

Pardon me while I drop in with a shameless plug, but since it's a quiet week on LiveJournal, why not: I posted a new Anders/f!Hawke fic called Bedtime Stories over thisaway. It's rated M, so be forewarned. (Not that anyone on this thread is liable to be particularly concerned about that, though, I suspect.

Wow. Pagrunner.  Few more like that and you might make me give in to my muse.  Though currently he's enamoured of Garrus and Shepard.

[kromify]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

I don't know, dude. I've seen so many people suggest that freedom is basically a privilege that something us cushy westerners are used to because we don't have people able to blow stuff up with our minds. And so many are perfectly able to do the templar ending so long as it does not involve killing or Tranquilizing your sister even though that's part of what the Annulment entails. Everyone dies, even those that might be innocent.

that's probably quite true. freedom is a western privilege... defo not a (don't want to sound racist) muslim, chinese etc one. 

[kromify]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

kromify wrote...

that's probably quite true. freedom is a western privilege... defo not a (don't want to sound racist) muslim, chinese etc one. 

I see it more as a right than a privilege. But I suppose you  have a point. I will not give up that everyone is most likely a decent person and has the right for basic freedoms. Though I see magic as a resource, and as all recources, something to be handled by the state and not the Chantry.

i would agree with you, but then i'm a bleeding heart liberal (hence earlier statement about chuck norris). history disagrees however  

[CulturalGeekGirl]

The problem is, once you start breaking down "right" versus "privilege" based on history or what is available in other countries, there are literally no human rights. They aren't a thing that exists, if you're gaguing them in terms of "what history has customarily allowed" or "what is available in every country." 

Rights aren't something that naturally occur out of chaos, they are concepts that a small number of people realize everyone deserves access to. These people then work to get these ideas accepted by society as universal. Things as basic as "the right to not be murdered for no reason" aren't any more true or real than the right to free speech, or marriage, or whathaveyou.

If rights exist, they are things that everyone ought to have, if we can swing it. If freedom isn't a right, then nothing is, and the entire discussion dissolves into pointless semantics and objectivism.

Edit: also, to be clear, freedom is not anarchy. Even freedom in very advanced countries usually involves some kind of record of birth or citizenship, weapon registration, and a criminal justice system.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 15 juin 2011 - 08:21 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Haha, point. I apologize. The whole "X isn't a right, it's a privilege" argument is just one that flips an explain-o switch in me.

I suppose the proper response is "can't it be both?"

[Sialater]

Well, either way, it's certainly something you have to fight for. DA2 shows us that much.

[kromify]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

kromify wrote...


i would agree with you, but then i'm a bleeding heart liberal (hence earlier statement about chuck norris). history disagrees however  

Oh? Please do elaborate if you wish, I am not a history buff.

neither am i - i just like to read. i couldn't give a complete analysis or anything. the legal right to make one's own choices is pretty recent for a lot of people, especially if you aren't a white male (oh that old story!) women until a few decades ago had the same legal rights as children and lunatics. or how about the magna carta? it basically set up our constitution, but was relevant only for free men - not serfs. serfs were still owned by their lords, had to work the fields of the lords and such. 
and don't lets forget the african slave trade?

these are all pretty standard fare... 

Modifié par kromify, 15 juin 2011 - 08:50 .

[kromify]

Sialater wrote...

Well, either way, it's certainly something you have to fight for. DA2 shows us that much.

that's why i like the game. how far does bleeding heart liberalism go...?


also; vaguely related question... why does "liberal" seem to be an insult in america? or am i just reading it wrong. in a country where the ability to elect a government is key it seems people aren't very tolerant of other prospective governments  

[beckaliz]

liberal = spends-taxpayer-dollars-to-support-deadbeats-and-lazy-tards-who-don't-want-to-work. Also, liberals are commies. Also, baby killers and anti-Jesus heretics.

[[EXTREME SARCASM ALERT]]

Modifié par beckaliz, 15 juin 2011 - 08:54 .

[DreamerM]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

There's not reall a good way to say this, but... I think Bioware wanted to get a 50/50 split between mage and templar siding, or as close as they could to it. (SNIP)

It's about preserving the status quo versus the dangerous risks of violent change.

It's also why I cannot complete my first playthrough. I simply cannot make this call based on the information at my disposal now.

my!hawke has been a champion of the oppressed from the get-go, whether the oppressed party in question are fereldans, mages, slaves, elves, or anyone. She's in a FRIEND!romance with Anders (despite the forest of neon colored warning signs), but also maxed out her friendship with Fenris by hating blood magic and telling slavers to ****** off. She wanted nothing to do with Merril's blood magic mirror and subsequently made a huge rival of her. She blames herself for not protecting her family, letting Bethany die and not reaching Leandra in time. She defended Orsino at the rally because Maredith's seeming inability to see how her harsh tactics just MIGHT be why the mages have gotten so desperate shows a basic, unforgivable lack of understanding of How People Work. She doesn't want to be vicount, she just wants to be who she is and make life better for the people around her.

Which is why the ending is so paralyzing. On one hand, slaughtering all the Circle mages for the crimes of an apostate does not seem in the slightest bit fair. On the other hand, killing the Templars may mean potentially bringing anarchy to Kirkwall, and also standing alone, since Avaline must uphold law and order and Fenris distrusts mages too deeply to stand with me on this one. Varric doesn't seem to care but Marril will stand by me, though considering her judgement that might not be a point in this choice's favor.

I cannot make this call, and it's driving me nuts.

[ademska]

@CGG, kromify, etc

and this is where i might actually prove myself moderately useful in a discussion.

in this kind of discussion, what most people struggle with is reconciling ingrained western beliefs with with a nagging doubt that, either in an attempt at objectivity or in the wake of human history, there is no objective gauge for what qualifies as a right.

human rights are soft law (that is to say, not codified/customary law and very subject to differing interpretations), that's true, however, modern international law has very clearly carved out what's called the "international minimum standard" that applies to treatment of aliens in foreign nations. it's observed universally and nations who violate it are sanctioned, at the very least reprimanded.

the point i'm making is that, in the grander scheme of philosophical discussion, the issue of human rights is up in the air, but pragmatically-speaking consensuses in this issue are very easy to reach

[Ryzaki]

Sialater wrote...

Well, either way, it's certainly something you have to fight for. DA2 shows us that much.

This is very true.

[ademska]

DreamerM wrote...

It's also why I cannot complete my first playthrough. I simply cannot make this call based on the information at my disposal now.

my!hawke has been a champion of the oppressed from the get-go, whether the oppressed party in question are fereldans, mages, slaves, elves, or anyone. She's in a FRIEND!romance with Anders (despite the forest of neon colored warning signs), but also maxed out her friendship with Fenris by hating blood magic and telling slavers to ****** off. She wanted nothing to do with Merril's blood magic mirror and subsequently made a huge rival of her. She blames herself for not protecting her family, letting Bethany die and not reaching Leandra in time. She defended Orsino at the rally because Maredith's seeming inability to see how her harsh tactics just MIGHT be why the mages have gotten so desperate shows a basic, unforgivable lack of understanding of How People Work. She doesn't want to be vicount, she just wants to be who she is and make life better for the people around her.

Which is why the ending is so paralyzing. On one hand, slaughtering all the Circle mages for the crimes of an apostate does not seem in the slightest bit fair. On the other hand, killing the Templars may mean potentially bringing anarchy to Kirkwall, and also standing alone, since Avaline must uphold law and order and Fenris distrusts mages too deeply to stand with me on this one. Varric doesn't seem to care but Marril will stand by me, though considering her judgement that might not be a point in this choice's favor.

I cannot make this call, and it's driving me nuts.

aw no, but that's what flemeth's getting at!  you have to LEAP!

my first hawke was of similar mind. pro-mage, diplo, friendmance anders, more pragmatic than anything. in the end, he just had to pick a side and RUN with it, and it was only while we both (he and i, lol) ran through the streets killing templars that we were able to really reflect on what the **** just happened and why, ultimately, we supported it

it was a dual learning experience!

[kromify]

ademska wrote...

snippity snip snip of win

my stance on life is very skewed around my education... or did i choose my education because it's skewed? ahh, science! let me count the ways i love thee!

anyway *cough* i find i often have a different outlook to most people because i am an evolutionary biologist. to put it simply i see a phenomenom and try to work out what made it so - it's like a backwards puzzle!!! [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie] i like to see the process that got us here in the first place. i think most people go with what's in front of them.

so what gives us the right to expect freedom? do other animals have the concept? do animals deserve the right to freedom because humans do? or are we all just species-ist (gosh i love that word!) how long have we had such a cool concept, and why has it taken us so long to implement even in the flawed way that we have?

"rights" are a very individualistic concept, and it takes the recognition of the value of individuality for our lords and masters to dish them out. which never really happens without a good revolt or plague! cullen completely lost my vote when he said that mages cannot be human... and i know i've started this little pickle before so i'll shut up now.



evolution rules  

Modifié par kromify, 15 juin 2011 - 09:20 .

[DreamerM]

Reflection Muse wrote...

DreamerM wrote...
I would like to add my own humble song choice. It's not dylan, but it's a sad and poetic expression of the dilema facing one man who can't tell vengence from justice and how, functionally, they may be the same thing....

Killing for Love


You've got a heart on fire,

it's bursting with desires.



You've got a heart filled with passion.

Will you let it burn for hate or compassion.



What's the point

if you hate, die and kill for love.

Whats the point with a love that

makes you hate, die and kill for.... 

That's so beautiful and bittersweet. Very fitting, indeed.

The music is so deliberately delicate too. It even sounds like something that might be played in the vast stone halls of a Kirkwall hightown estate... I thought it just fit perfectly.