57020 réponses à ce sujet

[Giggles_Manically]

Heidenreich wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I just dont see the "Anders always loves Hawke" thing in my current game.
A rivaling aggressive Hawke.

Jeebus not even Alistair and Morrigan were this harsh on each other.

Just wait till act 3. It's there.

I honestly just cant see it no matter how hard I try.
These two guys just dont get along at all.

How anyone can like a person who is insulting to them, goes against their views time and again, lives in with a person they hate..... I just cant comprehend. 

[Heidenreich]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Heidenreich wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I just dont see the "Anders always loves Hawke" thing in my current game.
A rivaling aggressive Hawke.

Jeebus not even Alistair and Morrigan were this harsh on each other.

Just wait till act 3. It's there.

I honestly just cant see it no matter how hard I try.
These two guys just dont get along at all.

How anyone can like a person who is insulting to them, goes against their views time and again, lives in with a person they hate..... I just cant comprehend. 

No one ever said Anders was sane

[Giggles_Manically]

Its not insanity.

Its like people who honestly ship Alistair and Morrigan.
There is nothing I can see there that suggests anything more then dislike.

[ademska]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Its not insanity.

Its like people who honestly ship Alistair and Morrigan.
There is nothing I can see there that suggests anything more then dislike.

except the writers for alistair and morrigan didn't intend anything to be there, people were just commenting on their perceived chemistry

with anders, the writers did intend it regardless of how hawke acts or who hawke is. anders is a nutter butter - for hawke and otherwise - no matter how you slice it.

[Sialater]

Heidenreich wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Heidenreich wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I just dont see the "Anders always loves Hawke" thing in my current game.
A rivaling aggressive Hawke.

Jeebus not even Alistair and Morrigan were this harsh on each other.

Just wait till act 3. It's there.

I honestly just cant see it no matter how hard I try.
These two guys just dont get along at all.

How anyone can like a person who is insulting to them, goes against their views time and again, lives in with a person they hate..... I just cant comprehend. 

No one ever said Anders was sane

The sex is just that good.  Or maybe Hawke's just that hot.

Modifié par Sialater, 20 juillet 2011 - 09:23 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I just dont see the "Anders always loves Hawke" thing in my current game.
A rivaling aggressive Hawke.

Jeebus not even Alistair and Morrigan were this harsh on each other.

By "don't see it" do you mean you don't understand it, or you don't see evidence of it? (Edit: it seems like the former, which is good. More interesting to discuss).

The fact that Anders loves even horrible, stupid, abusive Hawkes who hate him is a very interesting part of his character (not to imply that your Hawke is any of those things, I'm just saying that no matter how horribly you play Hawke, even if you deliberately make them the worst person ever, as long as you don't actually send Anders away, he still cares.)

These "worst case scenarios" demonstrate how desperate Anders is for any kind of companionship, and how he uses the dream of a relationship as an attempt to cling to the last shred of his humanity. I think that, in these cases, he feels some slight chemistry with Hawke early on, and uses that to build an idealistic dream of a potential relationship: oh, if only circumstances were different.. etc. In those cases he's in love with the idea of Hawke, and longs to reproduce the few brief instants of connection he felt in the beginning, something he doesn't feel with anyone anymore. Even if those moments of connection with Hawke were entirely in Anders' head, he can't give up the hope of feeling something like that again.

I don't think this devalues his actual love for Hawke in circumstances where Hawke is worthy of love, but it's one of the things that makes stories with a dumped or unromanced Anders so interesting to me. Would or could Anders ever realize the reasons he fell so fast, in circumstances where the relationship was awful or the love unrequited? I've done that myself... looked back on someone I was really infatuated with a few months later and said "oh, I liked them because I saw this one quality in them, and extrapolated it to mean that they were a certain kind of person, which they actually weren't." I've seen it explored interestingly in Fenders stories, as well as the few rare Anders + Awakening character post DA2 stories I've seen.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 20 juillet 2011 - 09:31 .

[Sinaxi]

berelinde wrote...

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

Tidra wrote...

I'm just assuming he'd have a bigger role in the next game if you kept him alive but eh. I also kind of hated how he is like "In this case, particularly since Anders was fully willing to die, I don't think having him live after all that would be very cool." And "Then don't kill him. He'll still be alive, even though he wanted to die. Problem solved."

In the event of a rivalry ending, where Justice assumes Direct Control, I'd say that this is true. Friendship, not so much. He says that he expects to have to pay for what he did with his life, but is positively giddy when you decide spare him and then sides with the mages. So I don't fully agree with DG on this one.

Yeah, when it comes to that quote in Tidra's post, I have to walk away from the monitor. IMO, it's the single most dismissive thing DG has posted. To me, it reads as taking sides at best, utter disregard and moderate disrespect toward players who did elect not to increase the game's body count at worst. IIRC, his posts on the subject since that date have not touched the same nerve, so perhaps the tone was the result of post-release burnout. For a while there, a lot of the BioWare people were pretty irritable on the forums.

But yeah, I wouldn't count on seeing Anders in DA3.

Yeah, which I think kind of makes no sense. I mean sure it does for people who killed him but if they are continuing with the mage/templar thing and it's a totally new protagonist that also won't make much sense to me. Meh, but I guess I just get attached to characters. You'd just sort of..think you'd see the guy who uh, started all this?! lol, but oh well. I just think it's almost kinda cheap to not finish out the storyline on Hawke if DA3 is about the mage/templar war, which I don't see how it wouldn't be...leaving that unresolved would make no sense. But that's just me dreaming. (I don't hate Hawke as much as many other people seem to)

Oh, and on posts by Devs...there was also something I kind of didn't get with Hepler's views on the rivalry/friendship romances with Anders.

As far as friendship and rivalry, to me, the friendship path is about
supporting Anders in his decisions, both to merge with Justice and
everything that stems from that. Therefore, he is generally happier
(more manic), and more convinced of his delusions, but is arguably a
worse person (more willing to do bad things). The rivalry path is about
making him see the error of his ways, so he ends up suffering more and
tending more to the depressive side, but is arguably a better person who
wants to make up for what he's done. Which is the "right" way is very
much up to the individual player.

The parts in bold I don't get. I understand he's written to be bipolar, and he does freak out about things and jump to conclusions about mages and templars and the like but the word "delusion" is what I'm not understanding...yes, he does have a ridiculously strong opinion on Mages and the Chantry (obviously) but how exactly is this a complete delusion? There is evidence to substantiate his fears of the Circle and the Chantry/Templars...so I'm not quite sure what she is referring to when she says delusion. Is it the fact that he has deluded himself into believing this is *HIS* cause or something? Can anyone enlighten me..or am I just misunderstanding her point?

And, I guess you could say he's more willing to do bad things since he believes in his convictions more when Hawke supports him, but regardless he still blows up the Chantry. Sure, you can convince him afterwards to help fight with the Templars but I also feel like this is partially because him and Justice have become so unstable and separate. He seems like almost a WORSE person to me on the Rivalry path because he has so much self-loathing, and for what? He still ends up doing exactly what he would have done on a friendship path. Is siding with the Templars the only thing you can make him "see the errors of his ways" on, or is there more to that on the Rivalry romance? I still see him show regret for what he's done regardless of friendship/rivalry, but he just won't help you destroy the circle on friendship..and I don't really get why he should? They didn't blow up the Chantry, him siding with the Templars doesn't show me he's "making up for what he did", if he had he would have just killed himself right there and been done with it. I guess I just don't get that either.

On another note, stuff like this makes me sad we didn't see more of the characters in DA2...the romance with Anders could have shown so much more about him and how him and Hawke were able to work through things and stuff. There could have been so much more for all the characters.

[ademska]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I don't think this devalues his actual love for Hawke in circumstances where Hawke is worthy of love, but it's one of the things that makes stories with a dumped or unromanced Anders so interesting to me. Would or could Anders ever realize the reasons he fell so fast, in circumstances where the relationship was awful or the love unrequited? I've done that myself... looked back on someone I was really infatuated with a few months later and said "oh, I liked them because I saw this one quality in them, and extrapolated it to mean that they were a certain kind of person, which they actually weren't." I've seen it explored interestingly in Fenders stories, as well as the few rare Anders + Awakening character post DA2 stories I've seen.

sound analysis all around, with regard to the hawke bit, and i'd add that the chemistry element he sees is likely hawke's willingness to actually offer an opinion on the justice merger. pretty sure it's been said before, possibly by you, but anders is still very torn on his stance with justice, and hawke not only helping him with an extremely personal matter but offering real advice on justice that isn't, "i'll turn you in" or "you must die" is probably the catalyst to anders latching on so thoroughly.

that said, i doubt very much that anders possesses that kind of self-awareness or propensity for self-reflection that would allow him to realize all that. i mean, i know you can't quite equate his views on mages to his views on hawke, because one of them has the vague backing of justice and one is considerably more individualistic to the anders side of janders, but his hypocrisy toward qunari, merrill, fenris etc throughout the entire game sets a kind of precedent. even pre-justice, i don't think he really possessed a strong inner eye, as it were.


wow, that was just the wordiest syntax, i need to eat or something.

[Giggles_Manically]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I just dont see the "Anders always loves Hawke" thing in my current game.
A rivaling aggressive Hawke.

Jeebus not even Alistair and Morrigan were this harsh on each other.

By "don't see it" do you mean you don't understand it, or you don't see evidence of it? (Edit: it seems like the former, which is good. More interesting to discuss).

The fact that Anders loves even horrible, stupid, abusive Hawkes who hate him is a very interesting part of his character (not to imply that your Hawke is any of those things, I'm just saying that no matter how horribly you play Hawke, even if you deliberately make them the worst person ever, as long as you don't actually send Anders away, he still cares.)

These "worst case scenarios" demonstrate how desperate Anders is for any kind of companionship, and how he uses the dream of a relationship as an attempt to cling to the last shred of his humanity. I think that, in these cases, he feels some slight chemistry with Hawke early on, and uses that to build an idealistic dream of a potential relationship: oh, if only circumstances were different.. etc. In those cases he's in love with the idea of Hawke, and longs to reproduce the few brief instants of connection he felt in the beginning, something he doesn't feel with anyone anymore. Even if those moments of connection with Hawke were entirely in Anders' head, he can't give up the hope of feeling something like that again.

I don't think this devalues his actual love for Hawke in circumstances where Hawke is worthy of love, but it's one of the things that makes stories with a dumped or unromanced Anders so interesting to me. Would or could Anders ever realize the reasons he fell so fast, in circumstances where the relationship was awful or the love unrequited? I've done that myself... looked back on someone I was really infatuated with a few months later and said "oh, I liked them because I saw this one quality in them, and extrapolated it to mean that they were a certain kind of person, which they actually weren't." I've seen it explored interestingly in Fenders stories, as well as the few rare Anders + Awakening character post DA2 stories I've seen.

Its not that I deny that it can be there... on some Hawke's I can see it.
Like my pro-mage Hawke who romances someone else.

Its more that in this case I just cant see it.
Hate defines their relationship for me.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I just dont see the "Anders always loves Hawke" thing in my current game.
A rivaling aggressive Hawke.

Jeebus not even Alistair and Morrigan were this harsh on each other.

The fact that Anders loves even horrible, stupid, abusive Hawkes who hate him is a very interesting part of his character (not to imply that your Hawke is any of those things, I'm just saying that no matter how horribly you play Hawke, even if you deliberately make them the worst person ever, as long as you don't actually send Anders away, he still cares.)

These "worst case scenarios" demonstrate how desperate Anders is for any kind of companionship, and how he uses the dream of a relationship as an attempt to cling to the last shred of his humanity. I think that, in these cases, he feels some slight chemistry with Hawke early on, and uses that to build an idealistic dream of a potential relationship: oh, if only circumstances were different.. etc. In those cases he's in love with the idea of Hawke, and longs to reproduce the few brief instants of connection he felt in the beginning, something he doesn't feel with anyone anymore. Even if those moments of connection with Hawke were entirely in Anders' head, he can't give up the hope of feeling something like that again.

Its not that I deny that it can be there... on some Hawke's I can see it.
Like my pro-mage Hawke who romances someone else.

Its more that in this case I just cant see it.
Hate defines their relationship for me.

You've never heard of anyone loving someone who hates and abuses them, and who they also kind of hate? It's a pretty common thing in reality, and a pretty common theme in spousal abuse situations: the few good times or the memory of initial attraction have established in the abused person the idea that they are "in love" with the other person. 

That may be the kind of love Anders has when Hawke really and truly hates him: the kind of love an abused wife has for her husband, who she also hates and would kill if she could.

[Sinaxi]

I don't really care for rivalry romances, personally. All it is to me is pretty much a volatile relationship where two people are constantly pushing and pulling at each other, but they can't ever seem to let go because it's the hateful passion that fuels their entire relationship and it's so utterly addicting. When it's going good they forget about the fact that they are pretty much destroying each other's lives, and then it gets bad...but the cycle just keeps on rolling.

Edit- but um, that's the point. It's ridiculously volatile and hateful. It's not healthy, it's not meant to be.

Modifié par Tidra, 20 juillet 2011 - 10:14 .

[ademska]

Tidra wrote...

The parts in bold I don't get. I understand he's written to be bipolar, and he does freak out about things and jump to conclusions about mages and templars and the like but the word "delusion" is what I'm not understanding...yes, he does have a ridiculously strong opinion on Mages and the Chantry (obviously) but how exactly is this a complete delusion? There is evidence to substantiate his fears of the Circle and the Chantry/Templars...so I'm not quite sure what she is referring to when she says delusion. Is it the fact that he has deluded himself into believing this is *HIS* cause or something? Can anyone enlighten me..or am I just misunderstanding her point?

And, I guess you could say he's more willing to do bad things since he believes in his convictions more when Hawke supports him, but regardless he still blows up the Chantry. Sure, you can convince him afterwards to help fight with the Templars but I also feel like this is partially because him and Justice have become so unstable and separate. He seems like almost a WORSE person to me on the Rivalry path because he has so much self-loathing, and for what? He still ends up doing exactly what he would have done on a friendship path. Is siding with the Templars the only thing you can make him "see the errors of his ways" on, or is there more to that on the Rivalry romance? I still see him show regret for what he's done regardless of friendship/rivalry, but he just won't help you destroy the circle on friendship..and I don't really get why he should? They didn't blow up the Chantry, him siding with the Templars doesn't show me he's "making up for what he did", if he had he would have just killed himself right there and been done with it. I guess I just don't get that either.

On another note, stuff like this makes me sad we didn't see more of the characters in DA2...the romance with Anders could have shown so much more about him and how him and Hawke were able to work through things and stuff. There could have been so much more for all the characters.

i wish i could play devil's advocate here and say, well, look how paranoid he is to merrill, look at what the codex says about his manic mood swings, but...

i've got little problem with the chantry jenga, to start, because i'm personally pretty far fringe on the mage issue -- i'd fully support his actions, to be honest, if it was only elthina in there and not innocents. so obviously i agree with his viewpoint and thus see him as someone Properly Paranoid. even on a personal level, meredith explicitly states that the only reason anders (and/or mage hawke) aren't in the circle is because hawke is the champion, and she tells hawke to tread lightly lest she change her mind. he's certainly over the top and manic when he yells at merrill to get out, but it's a founded fear at least.

anders siding with the templars never came close to reading like he was 'making up for his actions', it read like a broken man being persuaded to side against the innocents he was trying to free. he even regrets the decision (to side with the templars, not the chantry boom) midway through the end. that's not to imply that on a rival ending he doesn't feel bad about the chantry, though i would argue that -- as the entire point of the rivalry path is anders fighting against justice and being consumed -- he's more appropriating blame to justice than he is regretting his own actions.

so i agree with hepler's overall sentiment, that it's up for the player to decide if an anders who's retained his individuality at the cost of his sanity (rivalry) or a janders who's become a unified being (friend) is better, but i don't think he's delusional so much as manic.


edit:

@maxernst wrote...
I can see the point of view that on the Friendship path that you're
encouraging his self-delusion that he's merging with Justice rather than
surrendering to him.

i like that, it's sound. i'm not sure if i personally agree with it, because the janders relationship is so ambiguous, but i can easily see it. to the rest of your post: i think a lot of the divide is that a lot of us play hawkes who are (as are we) vehemently pro-mage.

Modifié par ademska, 20 juillet 2011 - 10:29 .

[maxernst]

Getting back to earlier discussion...I find it interesting that people admire Anders devotion to the cause above his devotion to Hawke. I personally do not like or trust people who value abstract ideals above people. To me, Anders (under Justice's influence) goes from being someone who wants to help people, in particular the mages in Kirkwall, to someone who is willing to use them (and Hawke) as tools toward some larger end. While you can argue that that larger end is a greater good, I think that taking that sort of view is the most common reason for the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

In contrast, my Hawke thinks that siding with the Templars might very well be the thing to do for the "greater good" of Kirkwall. He simply can't bring himself to slaughter innocent people in the name of law and order, so he sides with the mages. It might be a horrible mistake, but it's a moral position I'm more comfortable with. In a world where our actions have broader consequences that are difficult to foresee, I'll take the action which has the least negative immediate, predictable effects.

@Tidra, with respect to that post--it very much depends how you see his relationship with Justice. I can see the point of view that on the Friendship path that you're encouraging his self-delusion that he's merging with Justice rather than surrendering to him. I kind of feel that way about Merrill too, that the friendship path where you support and validate her choices may not be the right one.

[Jean]

Alistair/Morrigan I can't see. Nor can I see Anders/Fenris. Both pairs show nothing but outright dislike for one another. Not even in a slap slap kiss way.

[Sinaxi]

so i agree with hepler's overall sentiment, that it's up for the player to decide if an anders who's retained his individuality at the cost of his sanity (rivalry) or a janders who's become a unified being (friend) is better, but i don't think he's delusional so much as manic.

Yeah, I see what you mean but...on a personal level for me, I don't see why she says that Anders rivaled is a "better person". I don't see it. You even said the only reason he sides with Templars is because he is pretty much completely broken, and he regrets it. It's almost worse imo, for him to blow up the freaking Chantry and then say "oh..well..ok, let's kill the mages anyways" ?!?! So I really do disagree with her statement that he is a better person when he is rivaled. I just don't see why he is "arguably" a better person like that and worse on friendship.

Editt-

@Tidra, with respect to that post--it very much depends how you see his
relationship with Justice. I can see the point of view that on the
Friendship path that you're encouraging his self-delusion that he's
merging with Justice rather than surrendering to him. I kind of feel
that way about Merrill too, that the friendship path where you support
and validate her choices may not be the right one.

Well, I mean I looking at the choice he made with Justice..the problem is there is nothing you can do for Anders. You can either try to support him about his decision with Justice, or attack him about it at every turn which would never help anything. There isn't any way he can get rid of Justice, so I feel like constantly telling him Justice is taking him over doesn't do any good because in the long run...what can Anders do about that? The irony is that on the rivalry path, Justice seems to take control of him a lot more - so much that Anders stops remembering when Justice takes over. Unlike the other times when Justice takes over, a part of him still knows whats going on instead of everything being a complete blackout.

Modifié par Tidra, 20 juillet 2011 - 10:31 .

[ademska]

Tidra wrote...

Yeah, I see what you mean but...on a personal level for me, I don't see why she says that Anders rivaled is a "better person". I don't see it. You even said the only reason he sides with Templars is because he is pretty much completely broken, and he regrets it. It's almost worse imo, for him to blow up the freaking Chantry and then say "oh..well..ok, let's kill the mages anyways" ?!?! So I really do disagree with her statement that he is a better person when he is rivaled. I just don't see why he is "arguably" a better person like that and worse on friendship.

oh, no, don't misunderstand, i should have clarified; i don't think he's a better person rivaled. i think he's completely busted on rival and doomed to suicide, while on friend he's assimilated with justice and they're ready to kick some ass and ride crazily into the sunset with crazy hawke.

what i meant was that i agree with hepler's sentiment that it's up to the player to decide if anders' retained individuality is better than becoming janders. some people feel so strongly (negatively) about justice and his influence that they don't see the merger as worth it and prefer rival ending. i'm not one of them, not by a long shot, but i see where they're coming from.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

maxernst wrote...

Getting back to earlier discussion...I find it interesting that people admire Anders devotion to the cause above his devotion to Hawke. I personally do not like or trust people who value abstract ideals above people. To me, Anders (under Justice's influence) goes from being someone who wants to help people, in particular the mages in Kirkwall, to someone who is willing to use them (and Hawke) as tools toward some larger end. While you can argue that that larger end is a greater good, I think that taking that sort of view is the most common reason for the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

In contrast, my Hawke thinks that siding with the Templars might very well be the thing to do for the "greater good" of Kirkwall. He simply can't bring himself to slaughter innocent people in the name of law and order, so he sides with the mages. It might be a horrible mistake, but it's a moral position I'm more comfortable with. In a world where our actions have broader consequences that are difficult to foresee, I'll take the action which has the least negative immediate, predictable effects.

@Tidra, with respect to that post--it very much depends how you see his relationship with Justice. I can see the point of view that on the Friendship path that you're encouraging his self-delusion that he's merging with Justice rather than surrendering to him. I kind of feel that way about Merrill too, that the friendship path where you support and validate her choices may not be the right one.

Well, there are abstract ideals and there are abstract ideals. The focus of Anders actions isn't abstract ideals at all, really... he's about preventing specific horrors from happening to people in the future. He specifically wants to keep other mages from being raped and beaten and imprisoned and kidnapped and tranquilled. If you consider that an abstract idea, bully for you. I don't. That's something people miss: a big portion of Anders' crusade is sacrificing his personal liberty and future to try to help other people avoid the oppression and despair he's dealt with his whole life. It's like saying that abolitionists cared more about abstract ideals than people... the ideal that people should be free from slavery doesn't seem all that abstract.

Now, Justice or Vengeance do provide the 'abstract' bit of that equation, as Isabella points out. But no matter what, until the very end, Anders keeps his struggle connected to his history of witnessing real, personal suffering, and his desire to prevent others from suffering in the same way.

As for the merger, it's another of the many binary false choices we are offered in this game, binary choices I found more unnatural than any binary choices in other bioware games, because they were choices based on human psychology, rather than on action. If there were a way to encourage Anders to maintain a level of independence without hating himself, that would be freakin' great. If I were Hawke, I'd suggest seeing if we can work to make Justice/Vengeance more rational, and make them feel less trapped without painting Justice as a "bad idea demon" as you do on the Rival side.

But I went into what I would do in Hawke's situation waaaaaaaaay more extensively pages and pages ago. Since then, I've come to the realization that most people just don't think in terms of trian and error psychological treament when dealing with friends and loved ones... which is probably a good thing. Still, I have to make crazy justifications for my Hawkes being too wrapped up in other stuff to actually have any form of productive discussion with Anders about Justice and Vengeance.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 20 juillet 2011 - 10:45 .

[Sinaxi]

ademska wrote...

Tidra wrote...

Yeah, I see what you mean but...on a personal level for me, I don't see why she says that Anders rivaled is a "better person". I don't see it. You even said the only reason he sides with Templars is because he is pretty much completely broken, and he regrets it. It's almost worse imo, for him to blow up the freaking Chantry and then say "oh..well..ok, let's kill the mages anyways" ?!?! So I really do disagree with her statement that he is a better person when he is rivaled. I just don't see why he is "arguably" a better person like that and worse on friendship.

oh, no, don't misunderstand, i should have clarified; i don't think he's a better person rivaled. i think he's completely busted on rival and doomed to suicide, while on friend he's assimilated with justice and they're ready to kick some ass and ride crazily into the sunset with crazy hawke.

what i meant was that i agree with hepler's sentiment that it's up to the player to decide if anders' retained individuality is better than becoming janders. some people feel so strongly (negatively) about justice and his influence that they don't see the merger as worth it and prefer rival ending. i'm not one of them, not by a long shot, but i see where they're coming from.

Ahhh, all right. I see what you mean. Yes, I DEFINTELY see where you're coming from. In fact I pretty much think both of our opinions on the matters are fairly in line with each other. Haha.

Think one of my favorite Hawke lines has to be when Varric asks you if you're sure about getting involved with whatshismagename and Hawke's sarcastic line is like "Uh, Varric, in the amount of time you've known me...did you ever think I was turned OFF by crazy?" and he's like "Er. Good point."

Modifié par Tidra, 20 juillet 2011 - 10:53 .

[maxernst]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Well, there are abstract ideals and there are abstract ideals. The focus of Anders actions isn't abstract ideals at all, really... he's about preventing specific horrors from happening to people in the future. He specifically wants to keep other mages from being raped and beaten and imprisoned and kidnapped and tranquilled. If you consider that an abstract idea, bully for you. I don't. That's something people miss: a big portion of Anders' crusade is sacrificing his personal liberty and future to try to help other people avoid the oppression and despair he's dealt with his whole life. It's like saying that abolitionists cared more about abstract ideals than people... the ideal that people should be free from slavery doesn't seem all that abstract.

If abolitionists were deliberately provoking slave massacres, then yes, I would say they were placing the ideal of freedom above the interests of the actual people involved.  Encouraging them to rise up in revolt because they're oppressed is one thing, forcing them to because they have no choice if they wish to survive is quite another.

[beckaliz]

maxernst wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Well, there are abstract ideals and there are abstract ideals. The focus of Anders actions isn't abstract ideals at all, really... he's about preventing specific horrors from happening to people in the future. He specifically wants to keep other mages from being raped and beaten and imprisoned and kidnapped and tranquilled. If you consider that an abstract idea, bully for you. I don't. That's something people miss: a big portion of Anders' crusade is sacrificing his personal liberty and future to try to help other people avoid the oppression and despair he's dealt with his whole life. It's like saying that abolitionists cared more about abstract ideals than people... the ideal that people should be free from slavery doesn't seem all that abstract.

If abolitionists were deliberately provoking slave massacres, then yes, I would say they were placing the ideal of freedom above the interests of the actual people involved.  Encouraging them to rise up in revolt because they're oppressed is one thing, forcing them to because they have no choice if they wish to survive is quite another.

maxernst wrote...
I personally do not like or trust people who value abstract ideals above people.

Whoa, what abolitionists did or did not do, or their justifications, or what Anders did and what his justifications were, has nothing to do whether mage freedom is an abstract ideal or not. It isn't abstract. It is real, solid, a very valid concern. And his devotion to that ideal should not be taken as idiocy or dismissed as irrational or something to be derided. (I'm paraphrasing the impression I get from your earlier comments about Anders's cause. I could be misinterpreting that though.)

Don't make me C&P the dictionary definition of abstract.

Modifié par beckaliz, 20 juillet 2011 - 11:42 .

[maxernst]

beckaliz wrote...

maxernst wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Well, there are abstract ideals and there are abstract ideals. The focus of Anders actions isn't abstract ideals at all, really... he's about preventing specific horrors from happening to people in the future. He specifically wants to keep other mages from being raped and beaten and imprisoned and kidnapped and tranquilled. If you consider that an abstract idea, bully for you. I don't. That's something people miss: a big portion of Anders' crusade is sacrificing his personal liberty and future to try to help other people avoid the oppression and despair he's dealt with his whole life. It's like saying that abolitionists cared more about abstract ideals than people... the ideal that people should be free from slavery doesn't seem all that abstract.

If abolitionists were deliberately provoking slave massacres, then yes, I would say they were placing the ideal of freedom above the interests of the actual people involved.  Encouraging them to rise up in revolt because they're oppressed is one thing, forcing them to because they have no choice if they wish to survive is quite another.

maxernst wrote...
I personally do not like or trust people who value abstract ideals above people.

Whoa, what abolitionists did or did not do, or their justifications, or what Anders did and what his justifications were, has nothing to do whether mage freedom is an abstract ideal or not. It isn't abstract. It is real, solid, a very valid concern. And his devotion to that ideal should not be taken as idiocy or dismissed as irrational or something to be derided. (I'm paraphrasing the impression I get from your earlier comments about Anders's cause. I could be misinterpreting that though.)

Don't make me C&P the dictionary definition of abstract.

Freedom is an abstraction.  It's an idea.  Specific conditions of the mages are concrete, but Anders does nothing to address the specific needs of the mages  I'm not saying that it should be dismissed as irrational or idiocy.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with having ideals.  Lots of fine things like Democracy are abstractions..  But when you start using other people's lives without their knowledge or consent to further your ideals, then I have a problem with it.  To phrase it in a more familiar way, the ends don't justify the means.  They might if you could actually predict the ends all the time, but in reality, our plans often go awry and our only legacy is the means by which we attempted them.

Modifié par maxernst, 21 juillet 2011 - 12:14 .

[SurelyForth]

The problem with the mages is that there isn't anything anyone really can do to address the specific needs of the mages. It's a closed system, and a system wide epidemic of corruption.

I mean, he even tries. As a warden, he behaves and helps and is thanked by them recruiting a templar to keep him in check. In Kirkwall he spends six years as a healer, fighting alongside Hawke and the Captain of the city guard...working with an underground network of those who are willing to risk their lives to free mages. Being a good example of what a mage can be and can contribute to society, even a mage that's possessed, got him jack****.

There isn't ever going to be a shift in public opinion on mages because mages are hidden away, locked up and held prisoner. Because they can't contact their family, if they even know who or where their family is, most people probably have no idea what an average Circle is like, much less what an average mage is like.

And I really wish that someone would confirm if Anders knew that Meredith was calling for the Right of Annulment. I feel like, under those circumstances, his position is pretty defensible. He doesn't want the mages to die, or to suffer, but if they're doomed anyway (which he states they are, which leads me to believe that he does know), he's going to make damn well certain that they either have a chance or the impetus to fight back or, at the very least, their deaths are tied to an event that will draw attention to their deaths instead of it being just another Annulment.

[Jean]

I find it hard for anyone around the gallows to not hear about the annulment coming as much as that templar was blatantly saying it

[Taihsigva]

Yeah, Karras is pretty... not subtle about discussing the annulment. So unless Anders spent no time in the Gallows at all, which seems unlikely, he probably heard rumours at the very least.

[beckaliz]

maxernst wrote...

Freedom is an abstraction.  It's an idea.  Specific conditions of the mages are concrete, but Anders does nothing to address the specific needs of the mages  I'm not saying that it should be dismissed as irrational or idiocy.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with having ideals.  Lots of fine things like Democracy are abstractions..  But when you start using other people's lives without their knowledge or consent to further your ideals, then I have a problem with it.  To phrase it in a more familiar way, the ends don't justify the means.  They might if you could actually predict the ends all the time, but in reality, our plans often go awry and our only legacy is the means by which we attempted them.

I'm not contesting your assertion that the ends don't justify the means. I'm contesting that he is pursuing an abstract ideal.

"Freedom" in itself is an abstraction, yes. But "mage freedom" is not. It is very specific. Mage freedom involves releasing mages from the imprisonment and the horrible treatment that they suffer within that imprisonment. This is what he is pursuing. When you put a specific focus on freedom, ie mage freedom, it ceases to be abstract.

From the definition of abstract:
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance

If you said that you dislike him simply for putting his ideals and his goals ahead of other people, then that would be one thing. If you want to amend your statement to say this, then cool. Your comment, however, was that you dislike people who put abstract ideals ahead of others. And in the context of Anders, that bothers me, because his ideals are not abstract.