84 réponses à ce sujet

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

Well there can't be a middle ground when you blow it up.

And when your opponent is crazy.

[Camenae]

Yeah, why isn't there a middle-ground! What Thrask had going, up until the kidnapping, seems to be a pretty good middle-ground.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

And after siding with the mages I welcome our Templar overlords. Seriously nearly all the mages I tried to help stab me in the back. Apparently they don't teach them logic or common sense in the circle.

Or Kirkwall for that matter.

[MorningBird]

What Thrask did (while I applaud his intentions) was insubordination. he was acting outside of chantry's laws and regulations. The fact that he was rebelling implies (to me) that he did not believe his suggestion for a 'reform' would be accepted by the chantry (or perhaps that it had already been rejected.)

As for 'why isn't there a middle-ground', well, this is just how I see it:

The chantry has existed for hundreds of years. They've ruled over mages for hundreds of years.  I find it incredibly hard to believe that no one questioned their oppressive laws in regards to the treatment of mages in those hundreds of years.

The chantry has simply chosen to ignore all those who oppose their methods, and they've been ignoring them for hundreds of years.

So how long are mages supposed to wait before it's 'okay' to rebel? Another hundred years? fifty? ten?

This is why I believe there was no middle-ground. The chantry has already been given ample time to improve the system. They chose not to.

Modifié par MorningBird, 26 mars 2011 - 08:01 .

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

He's not exactly endearing people to his cause.

[MorningBird]

That wasn't really the impression I got at the end of DA2.

It actually seemed to me that Cassandra wants/wanted to open negotiations between the mages and chantry/templars and chantry.

Cassandra: "Not all of us desire war, Varric. Please, if you know where the Champion is, you must tell me. He is a hero, a man/woman the mages would listen to, someone who was there at the beginning. The Champion could stop this madness before it's too late. He may be the only one who can."

While I suppose this is open to interpretation, I don't think Cassandra was 'seeking' out the Champion so that he/she could tell the mages 'peacefully' turn themselves in to chantry oppression. It seems like like she wanted to use Hawke to open a dialogue between the chantry and mages/chantry and templars (depending on which side you pick.)

Modifié par MorningBird, 26 mars 2011 - 08:37 .

[LobselVith8]

kyles3 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

That's one way to look at it. Another is that it was comprised of members of an organization that was involved in a thousand years of slavery. 

Not disagreeing with your point, but I feel compelled to point out that it's also an organization that provides for people who have nothing. Remember the chantries in DA:O? All full of refugees.

This is one area where I think DA2 fails to represent all sides fairly; we see good mages and good templars, but the "good" face of the Chantry is a woman who has the power to make things better for at least some people but instead does nothing and helps no one.

As long as you're an Andrastian; otherwise, you're a "heathen."

Technically, the templars are part of the Chantry, or were before they defected. While they do aid people, they're also responsible for reprehensible actions. It's the same Chantry that allegedly sent templars into the Dales to force elves to convert, and while that might be disputed, it's not disputed that the elves who accepted human rule and went into the cities were forced to worship the Maker and Andraste because the Chantry made their religion illegal.

Sabariel wrote...

The alternative would have been idol-crazed Meredith changing her mind about the Tranquil Solution and that would've been the catalyst instead of Anders' "boom".

As for Anders, he's fine with me. I just wish he'd emptied the Chantry out first. Dingus

How would the choice between committing genocide or turning all Kirkwall mages into "templar puppets" have changed the choice for Hawke to choose between siding with the templars or siding with the mages? Both of these events would have acted as a catalyst of change for the Circles across Thedas, especially since no one among the Kirkwall Circle had any part in the attack against the Chantry or the Grand Cleric.

bztang wrote...

 @ MorningBird: I agree that many Templars have indeed abused their power while the Chantry stood still. However, granting the mages freedom or self-governance may not be the best solution, especially when DA history has clearly shown what mages without limitations can do: the Tevinter Imperium and the origins of the Blight/Darkspawn. Of course, that was long ago, but it just shows what can happen when mages are left without any supervision. 

And in opposition to the Imperium we have the nation of the Dales, the Chasind tribes, the Dalish clans, and the nation of Rivain to illustrate that free mages don't always try to subjugate people under their command or create empires of slavery and oppression. As for the fable of the Black City and the Magisters, there's no proof it even happened, and even the dwarves (who first encountered the darkspawn) don't believe it's a true story.

bztang wrote...

Hopefully, as a result of the Kirkwall Chantry's destruction and the Circle+Templar rebellions at the end of DA2, a co-operative organization will be formed between these two groups, independent of the Chantry, where a clear set of rules and laws can be forged in order to promote safety and prevent abuse and corruption, all the while catering to the human aspect of mages (i.e. make sure they see family, etc), not just dealing with their powers.

The Circles broke free from the Chantry, the templars stopped taking orders, and the Seekers are even broke free to hunt the mages. What makes you think anyone in the Circle is interested in working with those that forced them into servitude?

[LobselVith8]

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I dislike Anders. I shivved him in the first game and kicked him out of the party in my second, even though that meant no healer and no Supplier achievement.

The idea that you should be able to change him with the power of love (meaning, a few flirt options, sex, and an extra conversation at the end) is nonsensical. He has a spirit of Justice in his head. Anders might love you but the spirit don't.

Merrill managed to give up her Keeper, clan, and everything she knew for the mirror. I think she can give up Hawke.

Apparently the power of tough love is the only way to truely help him. By being friendly with him it's like you're enabling a drug addict. Rival him and he begins to reject Justice.

Also it's fun seeing Justice getting miffed.

So... wanting to put an end to slavery or wanting to restore a piece of your culture is akin to being a drug addict?

Torax wrote...

Keep in mind only how Anders considered it slavery.

Other characters refer to it as slavery as well. Even Hawke can call it slavery.

Adynata wrote...

I have to agree with some of what I've read here. I'm bothered most by the fact that you can't stop Anders (or Merrill for that matter) from going forward with their respecitvely stupid plans even if you are in a relationship with them. It sort of devalues the prupose of develop LI's in the game.

Why is Merrill's plan stupid? She wants to restore the Eluvian because it's a part of her peoples' history, and she wants them to benefit from it. I don't see why ignorance would be the better option for her than discovery. The entire premise behind the Dalish is the restoration of their past. She's willing to give up her life for a goal that might benefit her people, who at the moment hate and despise her. Aside from the fact that I don't think anyone in her clan is worth her losing her life over, I don't see why her plan is stupid when its aim is the benefit of the Dalish people.

Adynata wrote...

I'm not upset he blew up a chantry or that Merrill made me kill the whole Dalish clan

Merrill never made Hawke kill the whole Dalish clan, because you either take responsibility for what happened or the Dalish try to murder you when you tell them the truth about what happened.

MorningBird wrote...

While I suppose this is open to interpretation, I don't think Cassandra was 'seeking' out the Champion so that he/she could tell the mages 'peacefully' turn themselves in to chantry oppression. It seems like like she wanted to use Hawke to open a dialogue between the chantry and mages/chantry and templars (depending on which side you pick.)

Possibly. Hawke is either a hero to the mages or the templars, so it makes sense that Cassandra would seek him out to initiate such a plan, but what could the Seekers possibly offer to the mages or the templars to end a war? Do you have any ideas about what Cassandra might offer the mages to negotiate an armistice? I'm not even certain what the templars want in the first place. I wonder why the templars stopped taking orders and how they're dealing with the issue of lyrium withdrawal, unless they (or the mages) made a deal with the dwarves to wrest control of the lyrium trade from the Chantry, which would make sense if Varric is correct in stating that the Chantry is "in pieces."

[XBeth]

Personally, I was so angry with Anders for what he did. I tolerated him until that point. When starting the game, I decided to try him as an LI, because he seemed cool in DA:A (although I liked Justice even better, which was another reason why I went with Anders). But then poof, both Anders and Justice from Awakening are gone. I don't really hate him, but I wanted to hit him so much and yell my lungs out after he blew up the Chantry and end the relationship immediately. However, it was Hawk (who was supposed to love him), not me, so I let her 'forgive' him and felt sick about it for the rest of the game.

I see him as a terrorist now, the really bad kind. I went the middle way when it came to templars and mages, and really believed there could have been a compromise, but he had to 'ruin' everything. Anyone else see the connection between Anders and V (who blew up the Parliament in V for Vendetta)? Except I think V's actions were more justified, while Anders just 'lost it'.

[Cell1e]

MorningBird wrote...

Torax wrote...
Keep in mind only how Anders considered it slavery.

Anders wasn't/isn't the only one who considers it slavery.

Torax wrote...
The chantry was keeping them in a circle to also protect them. Young mages killed because the crops didn't flourish as well as the year before. Things of that nature. Hunting down the local magic users to blame for about everything. They are feared by majority of people on thedas. Just to bring some sort of conflict you run into select few who find it wrong and evil.

That's what they're supposed to do.  It's not what they did in Act 3.

Anders was the one who blew up the chantry.  An apostate mage. The circle of magi had absolutely zero involvement in his scheme.  They should not have been held accountable for the property damage or lives lost by the chantry or templars.  Anders admitted his crimes, and could have been dealt with swiftly right then and there.

In a situation like this, it's the templars' duty to protect the circle mages from those who would use Anders' actions as justification to eliminate the circle (which, once again, wasn't involved.)

However, Meredith is completely willing to Annul the entire circle for the crimes of an apostate.  Why?

Well, this is what she says: "It doesn't matter.  Even if I wished to I could not stay my hand.  The people will demand blood."

The Knight-Commander of the templars gave in to the MOB.  The very same mob that she and her templars are supposed to protect circle mages from.  Heck, she USED the mob as justification for invoking the Right of Annulment.

That being said, do the circles really provide a safe/healthy environment for mages?  In DA:O, Cullen admits that some templars 'gleefully' anticipate cutting down mages for failing their Harrowings, and this is in Ferelden, which seems to have one of the better run circles in Thedas.  Some templars are just as prejudice towards mages as the people they're supposed to be protecting them against.

The circle in Orlais was so terrible, that Fiona (The Calling) BEGGED Commander Genevieve (also The Calling) to recruit her into the Grey Wardens.

Then there's the circle in Kirkwall.  Abuse?  Rape?  And don't even get me started on Alrik.  Anders really put it best.  The Gallow's courtyard was swelling with Tranquil, more and more appearing with each passing day.  Good men and women who had passed their Harrowing.  Did the templars launch an investigation to root out this injustice?  No, they just turned a blind eye to it.

You know, I'm actually pro circles.  I think they do a lot of good in teaching mages how to control their powers, and I even support the Harrowings.  I even agree that mages probably shouldn't be monitored by a 'panel of their peers.'  The ideal scenario (for me) would be (as Thrask suggests) a system where templars and mages work together.

However, I also see things this way.  The system, as it is, is flawed.  The Chantry has had YEARS to fix it.  Heck, they've been asked--begged--to fix it by people who wanted to prevent the situation from worsening into an all out war.  There are peaceful mage fraternities that convene to discuss mage rights, treatment, and freedoms, but the Divine simply endures them.

Basically, I believe that if the chantry wanted to reform the system, they would have done so by now.  They haven't, and I don't think they ever intended to.

Torax wrote...
Jowan didn't want to be Tranquil. Turns out they were doing it because it was believed he was a blood mage and they were right. Most of the Magi seem happy with the circle and their life there. Ulrich was an extremist who took what he thought was his chance for taking back his home circle tower while there was no king. Granted he ended up being taken over by a pride demon. But he was an extremist who killed most of the Magi in his way that fought against him.

Ignoring what you said about Jowan (not because I disagree with you, I just don't have much of an opinion on what happened one way or the other) Uldred was hardly alone in wanting 'freedom.' There were many circle mages who sided with him.  You fight them on your way to the top of the tower.  You even have the option of sparing one of them by allowing them to escape (if they can slip past the templars.)

Heck, Niall even confirms that Ulred (while the leader) had supporters and wasn't acting alone.

Niall: "It might have been a signal.  That was when a whole group of mages poured into the chamber."

That being said, Uldred didn't just return to the circle from Ostagar and commence a hostile takeover.  Loghain promised the circle that if they threw their support behind him, he would use his political power to grant them  independence.  And you know what?  The circle was going to side with him for this.

Niall: "At Uldred's suggestion, the circle was about to ally itself with Loghain."

This indicates that the mages weren't happy with the chantry's control over their lives and that they did want liberation from them.

It wasn't until Wynne returned from Ostagar--with news of Loghain's betrayal--that the circle changed their mind.

Torax wrote...
In Dragon Age 2 you have a lot more conflict and it's crammed on us constantly about how abused they are so on. Anders didn't leave the circle previously out of slavery. He seemed more like he just wanted freedom. What slavery is there to be honest. You either perform the harrowing and live, become a Tranquil or death. But honestly I think besides Meredith's controlled circle, I think many circles wouldn't mind keeping an apprentice through to their elder ages as an apprentice as long as they weren't a risk to those around them.

How about being torn away from your family at the first sign of magic, with the templars instructing your parents  to simply forget you exist before dragging you away to the circle?  This is hardly a situation restricted to Anders.  The mage girl who gets cornered and threatened by Alrik was a circle escapee who just wanted to visit her parents.  Why?  Because the templars took her away without telling her family where she went or what had become of her.

How about not being able to raise your own family?  After all, the children of mages become the 'property' of the chantry.  Yes, that's right, the chantry considers human life property.

How about not being able to fall in love with someone outside of the circle?  Or needing special permission to get married?

How about having other people dictate when you can leave, where you can go, and when you have to be back?

Then there's the abuse, rape, and (as previously mentioned) the templars who display every prejudice against mages that they claim to be protecting them from.

Torax wrote...
Tranquility is basically a mercy and even then I highly doubt that is fully slavery. Truth be told in DA2 the Tranquil come across far more animated in DA2 compared to origins.

While I'm completely for 'better' circles and the practice of Harrowings, I am completely AGAINST tranquility.  The templars offer it as an alternative to death.  However, it's the equivalent of being made a zombie.

Look at Karl.  He was perfectly content with his life as a Tranquil.  That is, until Anders briefly restored his connection to the Fade.  then he tells you what being made Tranquil is really like.  All the joys of living are stolen from you when you are made tranquil.

It is not a mercy.

Morning bird summed it up really well. I wasnt shocked by Anders actions, gosh Merril and Isabella also did some horrific and incredibly selfish things for much more selfish reasons.

I couldnt believe that she stole the 'bible' of the quanari and all that time with all those qunari troubles and related killings kept quiet, all because she wanted to make some money.

Merril the same, doing what everyone in her clan asked her not to, all because she believed she was right.

I agree with morningstar, Anders took his action reluctantly because he felt something seriously big was needed to galvanise the circles to rebel. He basically sacrificed his life (he expected to be put to death) to ensure that there would be a major upheaval in the system.

I was always totally disgusted by how mages have been treated in DA, I was sickened be the self righteousness of the chantry leadership, even Sebastion, so priveleged and judgemental.

I personally have no sympathy for that chantry mother, she was warned to get out, she didnt, she had the power to help the mages, the elves, she never did. She was criminal in that she turned a blind eye to the evil acts perpetuated everyday in the name of the maker. It is much of a sin to see an injustice and walk away as it is to do the injustice.

So while playing this game and killing all sorts of baddies every day, making choices based on very little information in some missions would any person playing seriously  start to act all judgemental and righteous now and condemn Anders. The chantry should have been all thrown into prison, should have been investigated, they never were and probably never would be so as far as I am concerned deserve everything they get.

People who behave like that and justify/ignore crimes against humanity in the name of the maker? Bah!

I totally supported Anders with all my characters and in all my playthroughs, he did what he felt was right and he didnt do it lightly. He is a hero if you ask me.

[DA_GamerGal]

PurebredCorn wrote...

I have a difficult... *very* difficult, time getting past what he does in the end. I too am biased against him and still can't even think about having him in my party. I can't even look at him in game without the overwhelming urge to want to smash him in the face. I really wish I could "forget" about his actions, because I think he's an absolutely brilliant character.

I loved Anders in DA:Awakenings and I love him in DA2 ( although he is a lot darker and tortured now). I was also devestated when he destroyed the chantry as I was in a romance with him. I was so upset that I killed him! ( I was playing as a Rouge and not a Mage).

I wished there were more scenes of Anders almost losing control to Justice... I feel that Bioware really underplayed that aspect, especially with what Anders does in the end. As the years went by Hawk should have been able to see his loss of control in an on-going gradual manner and should have been able to react and comment on his struggle. But I guess if they did that, Anders end act would not  have been such a shock... Hawk would have seen it coming.

I do miss all the humor and wit that Anders had before... I would have liked a bit more of that.

[Sordel]

I haven't got as far as "what Anders does at the end" yet, but I'm not surprised to read some of the spoilers in this thread. He's an impossibly annoying companion ... my pro-mage mages are not pro-mage enough for him, and my bad mage Hawke annoys him despite the fact that he did his own deal with a demon. The only Hawke I have who knows where she stands with him is my templar.

[kyles3]

LobselVith8 wrote...

While they do aid people, they're also responsible for reprehensible actions. It's the same Chantry that allegedly sent templars into the Dales to force elves to convert, and while that might be disputed, it's not disputed that the elves who accepted human rule and went into the cities were forced to worship the Maker and Andraste because the Chantry made their religion illegal.

I never said the Chantry didn't do bad things. My point was that there are good people within the organization. While it's true that they have oppressed nonbelievers, it's not the only way they try to gain converts. I mean, Rigby seemed like a pretty decent dude, didn't he?

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

MorningBird wrote...

That wasn't really the impression I got at the end of DA2.

It actually seemed to me that Cassandra wants/wanted to open negotiations between the mages and chantry/templars and chantry.

Cassandra: "Not all of us desire war, Varric. Please, if you know where the Champion is, you must tell me. He is a hero, a man/woman the mages would listen to, someone who was there at the beginning. The Champion could stop this madness before it's too late. He may be the only one who can."

While I suppose this is open to interpretation, I don't think Cassandra was 'seeking' out the Champion so that he/she could tell the mages 'peacefully' turn themselves in to chantry oppression. It seems like like she wanted to use Hawke to open a dialogue between the chantry and mages/chantry and templars (depending on which side you pick.)

Wasn't talking about Hawke, but Anders. My Hawke was trying to be diplomatic about the whole situation but like most events that take place in the game Hawke's decision wasn't in the equation. By the end I wanted to throw Varric over my shoulder and head to the pub because I'll be damned if I'm involved in a war I tried to stop. If given the choice I'd have pulled Elthina from the Chantry and we would have lived togeher in perpetual neutrality.

Seriously Anders you ruined my quiet little life.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

Not mine but summed up my feelings on the whole matter quite nicely.

[Kryz]

A little late to jump in, but I felt inclined to point this out.

bztang wrote...

 @ MorningBird: I agree that many Templars have indeed abused their power while the Chantry stood still. However, granting the mages freedom or self-governance may not be the best solution, especially when DA history has clearly shown what mages without limitations can do: the Tevinter Imperium and the origins of the Blight/Darkspawn. Of course, that was long ago, but it just shows what can happen when mages are left without any supervision.

The origins of the First Blight *as told by the chantry*. Alistair in DA:O, when asked about where darkspawn comes from, says 'Do you want the Chantry's version, or the truth?' His thruthful answer being 'we don't know'. Wynne as well, when telling the story, says 'it may be allegory, meant to teach us that our own evil causes human suffering, or it may be true.'

Nice story/explanation and all, but whether or not that's actually what happened has yet to be proven - and likely *won't* be.

Not that that stops people from using it as a justification for 'OMGMAGESREVIL'. 'The nature of religious folk, indeed...

*BACK ON TOPIC*
As for Anders himself (perosnality-wise, considering that was the original point of this thread), I had no problems with him at all. Yeah, the missing humor was a bit of a downer, but most everyone in the entire game was 'o so serious'. That kinda happens when a revolution is going down. 

Modifié par Kryz, 26 mars 2011 - 06:33 .

[sydified]

LobselVith8 wrote...

When you consider what he's been through, it's understandable. He wasn't going to be the same person he once was when he's merged with another entity, and he's focused on the plight of all mages in Thedas. I thought he was one of the most complex characters in DA2.

This. Sure, I really missed the Alistair-like carefree Anders, but if he acted exactly the same after all that happened with Justice I would be way more disappointed. I liked how they developed him instead of just making him stay the same.

[bztang]

LobselVith8 wrote...

And in opposition to the Imperium we have the nation of the Dales, the Chasind tribes, the Dalish clans, and the nation of Rivain to illustrate that free mages don't always try to subjugate people under their command or create empires of slavery and oppression. As for the fable of the Black City and the Magisters, there's no proof it even happened, and even the dwarves (who first encountered the darkspawn) don't believe it's a true story.

I agree that not all mages are dangerous and that some nations/species have been able to integrate them into peaceful societies with co-operation and dedicated mage hunters (ex. the Dalish hunt their own Keeper if possessed), but these societies are not controlled by the mages as they are in the Tevinter Imperium; I was just trying to show one extreme of the spectrum, where mages rule with an iron fist.
As for the Black city, no one can prove, nor disprove whether it existed or not, at least with what we know so far. 

LobselVith8 wrote...
The Circles broke free from the Chantry, the templars stopped taking orders, and the Seekers are even broke free to hunt the mages. What makes you think anyone in the Circle is interested in working with those that forced them into servitude?

As Thrask demonstrated, as well from the epilogue quote about Templars rebelling, there are plenty of Templars and mages willing to work together to ensure the mages are protected and the Templars are just, free of the Chantry's subjugation.

MorningBird wrote...

As for the sudden wave of abominations and blood mages... well, there's a reason I have yet to develop an opinion on this.  Some people attribute the high risk of becoming an abomination in Kirkwall to the torn veil.  Anders attributes the surplus in blood mages to the situation of mages growing increasingly more desperate.

Is there any truth to this?  I honestly don't know, but I can't just dismiss it.  That's why I (as a player) will always side with the mages and Anders.

That's a good point...

Speaking of torned veil, there's this one thought that's been in the back of my mind for a long time: what if the Tevinters somehow orchestrated the influx of demons, the increase in blood magic usage, the mounting tensions between Orlais and Ferelden and the Qunari invasion of Kirkwall to induce chaos in the rest of Thedas while they rebuild their power?

I mean, if there is a civil war between the mages/chantry/templars, a war between the Free Marches and the Qunari, and War between Orlais and Ferelden, and also throw in some demons...that's a heck of a formula for disaster, and the Tevinters conveniently seem to be least affected by all this.

[Pix]

I killed Anders at the end (with very mixed feelings.) I just couldn't believe he would do something so stupid as to fuel the war against our favor! Moron! WHY when I killed him did he not become the demon he was? If Anders was really fully possessed by Justice/Vengeance, why was there not a bigger battle? I'm very confused.

[Sjofn]

Because he and (I presume) Justice also feel him dying for what he did is just.

[MorningBird]

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

Wasn't talking about Hawke, but Anders. My Hawke was trying to be diplomatic about the whole situation but like most events that take place in the game Hawke's decision wasn't in the equation. By the end I wanted to throw Varric over my shoulder and head to the pub because I'll be damned if I'm involved in a war I tried to stop. If given the choice I'd have pulled Elthina from the Chantry and we would have lived togeher in perpetual neutrality.

Seriously Anders you ruined my quiet little life.

*snip*

I agree.  At most, Hawke could send Meredith and Orsino to their separate corners and tell them to play nice, but in the grand scheme of things, all they were doing was prolonging the inevitable.  The circles have existed since the Divine Age.  I'm sure that between then and now (the Dragon Age) many people have tried to pursuade the chantry to reform their strict regulations and crack down on their out of control templars.

They just don't seem to be interested in changing their laws.

I mean, look at the mage boon request in DA:O.  If the Chantry says 'no' to a national hero (the Warden) and a monarch (the King/Queen of Ferelden) then what chance does the Champion of Kirkwall have of swaying their opinion?

It took an extreme measure for them to realize they'd gone too far, and only now are they trying to repair the damage before they have a full-scale war on their hands.

[Rhys1984]

He fought a losing battle with vengeance for six years in his mind and soul. In the end it was all he was, all he could think about.

It was like that last week before Dragon Age 2 came out, all consuming.

In the end Vengeance was all he was, all he could be, there was no compromise, no backing down, for what ever would come next, he had to do what he felt was just.

[galian77]

I really liked him, but I guess that was partly because he was one of my favorite characters from Awakenings.

He did what he felt was right. Drastic times called for drastic measures, and something had to be done.

I romanced him despite knowing what he would do (yay for reading spoilers), and still, I couldn't help but feel for him and still love him at the end, enough to run away with him.