2340 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

RagingCyclone wrote...

I am reading through this thread and find myself amazed and wondering how many actually used their Hawke's perspective in deciding Anders fate instead of the simply terrorist or mage.vs templar reasoning. I have killed him in every one of my four plays, and here's why for each Hawke...

I think a pro-mage Hawke could argue that the Chantry is a terrorist organization and that Anders is emancipating his people from slavery (since the Champion identifies the Chantry controlled Circle as slavery to Fenris if the latter sided with Meredith and her templars).

[esper]

RagingCyclone wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

I am reading through this thread and find myself amazed and wondering how many actually used their Hawke's perspective in deciding Anders fate instead of the simply terrorist or mage.vs templar reasoning. I have killed him in every one of my four plays, and here's why for each Hawke...

Thanks, had no idea I was playing the game wrong.

Didn't say wrong, I said that it seemed that for most it was one or the other, and see very little of Hawke's perspective in explanations. 

All right, you want Hawke's perspective for not killing Anders:

Marian Hawke: She was as much pro-mage freedom as Anders, and being a blood mage herself she didn't even have a huge problem with the large number of bloodmages in Kirkwall. She tried the diplomatic solution witht the Arishok - that ended with a beheaded Vicount and Meridith as the de facto leader of the city, so in act three she had come to the conlusion that mages would never gain freedom peacefully. Besides that she lost all will to follow the Maker after an ogre chrused her baby sister. she saw elthina as a much larger threat than Meridith, and the event with the chantry was for her the starting signal that now all mages had to fight, besides Anders was her lover which meant he was family. The thought of killing him never crossed her mind.

Evelyn: As a spirit healer, she was appalled by all sort of violence, including the chantry, but both as a healer and a friend she could never kill someone who wasn't trying to kill her. She sent Anders away, but forgave him in the Gallows, because quite frankly she needed every man to fight and get out again and it was just for one fight. It didn't matter that carver was a templar. She had to stand with her people and just hoped that Carver would see reason befor it was too late.

My third Hawke was force mage and the only one to rival Anders. She was never against mage-freedom she just didn't want to attract negative attention from the templar so she did what they asked and ducked her head and hoped that they wouldn't take notice. Meridith could properly had bullied her into taking her side if Orsino hadn't pointed out that Meridith would turn on Hawke as well. With the way Meridith acted in act three Hawke was perfectly willing to believe that Meridith no longer would overlook Hawke's magic so she sided with the mages at the end. Anders was orignally just a rebound from Fenris, but she had come to love him and with her brother dead, Isabella handed over to the Arishok, Fenris siding against her, Varric rivalled and Aveline more and less declared in her final question believe that she wanted no more to do with 'serah' Hawke. Hawke had no other than Anders in her life and couldn't kill him.

The problem with seeing it from Hawke's perspective as you suggest is good enough when we play the game, but quite frankly Hawke is properly the person least objective in the whole matter.        

[RagingCyclone]

esper, but isn't that point of role playing as Hawke, to make decisions on his/her perception? Objective or not?

[esper]

@RagingCyclone.
Yes, it is the point of roleplaying, but is not always the point of the moral discussing we are having at the forums. You can say why your Hawke does one thing or another, but you cannot always say that Hawke did the right thing, just the thing that was in Hawke's character. I don't think of my Hawkes as god, my canon one (marian) becomes more and more extreme - which is dangerous when she is a blood mage. If there ever is an expansion I might have to make choices with her that I in real life would never do, and my third Hawke made some choices that I can't morally defend. A lot of the mage-templar arguments in the furums are not about what Hawke thinks is right, but how we can morally defend one side or another. I have yet to see one compelling argument for the templars, but I know someone thinks the same way with the mages. That is why it is discussed so much (which was your original question in the post)
And the way you worded the text, made it seem like that no Hawke could ever in character spare Anders (not saying that it was intentional), which all my Hawke so far disagrees with.

[Monica21]

RagingCyclone wrote...

esper, but isn't that point of role playing as Hawke, to make decisions on his/her perception? Objective or not?

I don't see how a player can take themselves out of that moment. I understand why people choose not to kill Anders, but the situation itself is entirely too much real life smacking us in the face. We don't have mages and templars but we do have crazy people who steadily become crazier and then write manifestos and join underground organizations and as a last-ditch effort try and blow the **** out of something with fertilizer to make a point.

My first time playing through I knew it was going to happen but didn't know how, and the only thing that really bothers me is that it's just lazy writing. There is a way to go off the deep end in a video game without reminding people of real life terrorists, and I prefer not to make an Anders/Timothy McVeigh comparison during act 3.

[esper]

I quite disagree with you Moncia21, you can do something in a game that you don't support in real life. As said above my third Hawke does a lot that I would never do. I felt unclean when my Hawke handed Grace and the other over with Kerras standing there and saying what he said, but I manage to go through with it.
But Maker knows it is hard to do sometimes. I have an in real life problem with sticking knives in th back of a person that I have supposingly known for 7 years, no matter what they have done. I just can't do, just as I can't whole heartly support the templars and the things they stand for, but that is a limit in the characters I can roleplay - I know some talented person can roleplay all kind of characters and still think it is fun, because it is roleplaying, not real life.

[Monica21]

esper wrote...

I quite disagree with you Moncia21, you can do something in a game that you don't support in real life. As said above my third Hawke does a lot that I would never do. I felt unclean when my Hawke handed Grace and the other over with Kerras standing there and saying what he said, but I manage to go through with it.
But Maker knows it is hard to do sometimes. I have an in real life problem with sticking knives in th back of a person that I have supposingly known for 7 years, no matter what they have done. I just can't do, just as I can't whole heartly support the templars and the things they stand for, but that is a limit in the characters I can roleplay - I know some talented person can roleplay all kind of characters and still think it is fun, because it is roleplaying, not real life.

I never said that you can or can't do anything in real life that you wouldn't do in a game. That happens all the time. I'm saying that lazy storytelling made it impossible for me to separate reality from fantasy in the Anders scenario.

[esper]

Why? Because he blew up the chantry?

[LobselVith8]

esper wrote...

Why? Because he blew up the chantry?

One could argue that's no different than what happens in Inglorious Basterds.

[Monica21]

esper wrote...

Why? Because he blew up the chantry?

Not just that, but the way he did it. Sela petrae is one letter off from the Latin word for saltpeter which, oh by the way, is the oxidizing component in gunpowder. Again, too much real life in my fantasy RPG. It's not necessary in a game where mages can already create an enormous amount of destruction. This was not a sudden crack. This was an act that was carefully planned all the way down to Hawke's involvement.

[esper]

Monica21 wrote...

esper wrote...

Why? Because he blew up the chantry?

Not just that, but the way he did it. Sela petrae is one letter off from the Latin word for saltpeter which, oh by the way, is the oxidizing component in gunpowder. Again, too much real life in my fantasy RPG. It's not necessary in a game where mages can already create an enormous amount of destruction. This was not a sudden crack. This was an act that was carefully planned all the way down to Hawke's involvement.

So basically your problem it that it comes to close to real life? I liked that it touched some buttoms, and it did.
 We have seen no mages being able to blow stuff up in that scale.
Demons are more the smash them down and eat them type, and blood magic is sacrifical magic. That is comepletely different and has so far been seen as the most destructive forces of magic.

I like the fact that Anders involved Hawke, all the way to the emotional blackmail. I have a tendency to want to know everything so in my first playthrough where I wasn't roleplaying so much, I suddenly had Anders blacmailing my Hawke and I was  why don't you trust me? - Extremely suspicous of what I had done by helping him that was so bad that he didn't want to tell me.
I don't think that is sloppy writing. It think that is an exellenct charactization of a man ready to sacrifice everything for an ideal and a cause, and I mean everything. Anders is meant to be a dangerous man, I never denied that.

The mage-templar thing definitly touched my some of my bottoms. Some that even make it impossible to even think of siding permentently with the templars in the end, but I don't think that is bad writing. Good stories have real life paralells, even fantasy stories.

Bad writng is thing like Orsino suddenly going insane when pro-mage Hawke is winning the fight.

And quite frankly. What does it matter what the bomb are made of? Is the problem not how many it kills and not how it kills them. I find it disturbing that some people seem to think that it would be a less unredeemable crime if Anders had... say turned everyone in the chantry to dust with a random tevinter spell that didn't blew the building up in a flashy red laser light, or if he had poisoned everyone in the chantry with magic gas or something.

[Monica21]

[quote]esper wrote...
So basically your problem it that it comes to close to real life?[/quote]
Essentially yes. Anders doesn't need a bomb to be dangerous. He can be dangerous by doing nothing more than using magic.

[quote]I like the fact that Anders involved Hawke, all the way to the emotional blackmail.[/quote]
I don't mind the emotional blackmail part, to be honest. That's the least of my problems. I think that's interesting characterization. I didn't like why I was being blackmailed.

[quote]I don't think that is sloppy writing. It think that is an exellenct charactization of a man ready to sacrifice everything for an ideal and a cause, and I mean everything. Anders is meant to be a dangerous man, I never denied that.[/quote]
The problem with the "sacrificing everything" bit is that if a Hawke doesn't kill him and doesn't end the relationship, he hasn't sacrificed anything. I don't really care if he's ready to sacrifice either, because he made a choice that sacrificed someone else's life in the name of his cause.

[quote]Good stories have real life paralells, even fantasy stories.[/quote]
This is less a parallel and more "straight from the headlines."

[quote]Bad writng is thing like Orsino suddenly going insane when pro-mage Hawke is winning the fight.[/quote]
It's possible to have more than one instance of bad writing. Meredith was bad writing too.

[quote]And quite frankly. What does it matter what the bomb are made of?[]/quote]
It's unoriginal.

[quote]Is the problem not how many it kills and not how it kills them. I find it disturbing that some people seem to think that it would be a less unredeemable crime if Anders had... say turned everyone in the chantry to dust with a random tevinter spell that didn't blew the building up in a flashy red laser light, or if he had poisoned everyone in the chantry with magic gas or something.[/quote]
No, the problem is that I was surprised the writers couldn't think of something more original as Anders breaking point. Terrorism never makes sense. 

[Xilizhra]

Terrorism never makes sense.

Really? I think it always makes sense. There's some sort of underlying motive for every terrorist act, and this one was made pretty obvious. I'm not even certain if "terrorist" is accurate, but as they say, one person's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter.

[Zanallen]

Killing Anders is always the correct choice and is the canon choice going forward in the series.

[Xilizhra]

Zanallen wrote...

Killing Anders is always the correct choice and is the canon choice going forward in the series.

Then it would seem I break canon. How sad.

[Chewin]

Zanallen wrote...

Killing Anders is always the correct choice and is the canon choice going forward in the series.

You're funny.

[Zanallen]

Xilizhra wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Killing Anders is always the correct choice and is the canon choice going forward in the series.

Then it would seem I break canon. How sad.

I know. You should be ashamed of yourself. Here, have a dagger. Now go in and get it right this time.

[Xilizhra]

Zanallen wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Killing Anders is always the correct choice and is the canon choice going forward in the series.

Then it would seem I break canon. How sad.

I know. You should be ashamed of yourself. Here, have a dagger. Now go in and get it right this time.

Alrighty.
*stabs Sebastian*

[Zanallen]

Xilizhra wrote...

Alrighty.
*stabs Sebastian*

*Frowns*

Hmmm...

*Checks notes*

Meh, acceptable. We'll have to kill Alistair then to compensate.

Modifié par Zanallen, 21 août 2011 - 04:30 .

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

Terrorism never makes sense.

Really? I think it always makes sense. There's some sort of underlying motive for every terrorist act, and this one was made pretty obvious. I'm not even certain if "terrorist" is accurate, but as they say, one person's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter.

This word is constantly thrown at Anders every time his actions are given any criticism. Technically, the American revolutionaries could be seen as terrorists. The slaves of Saint Domonique who rebelled against slavery and oppression from France and Napoleon could be seen as terrorists. The Cuban revolutionaries fighting for democracy could be seen as terrorists. I don't understand why people who dislike Anders always throw the word around as though it should villify him when many groups we don't denigrate can be labelled with the same word.

Anders wanted to put an end to an institution that he saw as "slavery," and his opinion that it's slavery isn't dismissed by even the hardcore pro-Chantry members of Hawke's group (since even pro-mage Hawke calls it slavery). Never once does Fenris or Sebastian say that what the Chantry controlled Circles aren't slavery, even when providing their own opinion on the matter. Even Cullen seems to think that templars have "divine right" over mages. From the POV of my apostate Hawke: am I supposed to hate a man who wants to end the slavery of our people?

Modifié par LobselVith8, 21 août 2011 - 04:33 .

[Melca36]

Zanallen wrote...

Killing Anders is always the correct choice and is the canon choice going forward in the series.

Just because its your choice doesn't make it everybody else's choice.

My rogues killed him and my mages let him live and ran off with him.

[Zanallen]

Melca36 wrote...

Just because its your choice doesn't make it everybody else's choice.

My rogues killed him and my mages let him live and ran off with him.

It wasn't my choice; however, it is the only correct choice. I'm sorry. I don't make the rules.

[Neminea]

I keep seeing "innocent people" and "chantry" in one sentence.
I don't agree that the chantry is innocent, they are suppose to be in control of the templars, they -made- the templars. Grand clerics whatsherface excuses as to why she didn't do anything seemed weak to me at best, and a ploy to let the templars eventually annul the whole circle at worst.
No, in my opinion, the chantry is far from innocent.

Did they deserve the bombing? I don't know. Can I blame Anders for it? No, just like I can't blame irl opressed people/nations for killing for their freedom.

[Melca36]

Zanallen wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Just because its your choice doesn't make it everybody else's choice.

My rogues killed him and my mages let him live and ran off with him.

It wasn't my choice; however, it is the only correct choice. I'm sorry. I don't make the rules.

 
No.  Thats your roleplay choice...NOT everybody else's. When you get older you will understand what choice means.
What your are trying to do is convert people to your opinion...big difference.

[Neminea]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Terrorism never makes sense.

Really? I think it always makes sense. There's some sort of underlying motive for every terrorist act, and this one was made pretty obvious. I'm not even certain if "terrorist" is accurate, but as they say, one person's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter.

This word is constantly thrown at Anders every time his actions are given any criticism. Technically, the American revolutionaries could be seen as terrorists. The slaves of Saint Domonique who rebelled against slavery and oppression from France and Napoleon could be seen as terrorists. The Cuban revolutionaries fighting for democracy could be seen as terrorists. I don't understand why people who dislike Anders always throw the word around as though it should villify him when many groups we don't denigrate can be labelled with the same word.

Don't forget the recistance during the second world war. They were terrorist from the german pov.